Is Ralph Cicerone correct?

Question

Science Editorial    February 5, 2010

Ensuring Integrity in Science
HACKED ELECTRONIC RECORDS OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA’S CLIMATE
Research Unit (UEA/CRU) led to worldwide publicity during the December 2009 Copenhagen climate change convention. UEA is conducting a formal investigation to determine whether UEA scientists manipulated or suppressed data or otherwise acted unprofessionally.  My reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by this incident; but it has raised concern about the standards of science and has damaged public trust in what scientists do.  

In the wake of the UEA controversy, I have been contacted by many U.S. and world leaders in science, business, and government. Their assessments and those from various editorials, added to results from scattered public opinion polls, suggest that public opinion has moved toward the view that scientists often try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ideas and that scientists will withhold data and try to manipulate some aspects of peer review to prevent dissent. This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.

What needs to be done? Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists. The good news is that some efforts to address both issues have already begun. But now we must make further advances on both fronts. Clarity and transparency must be reinforced to build and maintain trust¬internal and external¬in science. Scientists are taught to describe experiments, data, and calculations fully so that other scientists can replicate the research. Last year, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine put forth a framework for dealing with research data,* emphasizing that “Research data, methods and other information integral to publicly reported results should be publicly accessible.”  Some journals have established policies that require the sharing of materials and data. However, post-publication complaints regarding data sharing persist. Despite many efforts, the scientific
community has failed to uniformly integrate these standards into their practices.  

It is essential that the scientific community work urgently to make standards for analyzing, reporting, providing access to, and stewardship of research data operational, while also establishing when requests for data amount to harassment or are otherwise unreasonable.  A major challenge is that acceptable and optimal standards will vary among scientific disciplines because of proprietary, privacy, national security, and cost limitations. Failure to make research data and related information accessible not only impedes science, it also breeds conflicts. Contention over paleoclimatic data was at the heart of the UEA/CRU e-mail exchanges. Beyond data handling, the relationship between science and society depends on the personal conduct of scientists in all that they do. Fortunately, an up-to-date guide to responsible conduct in research is now available,** and its standards should be energetically pursued throughout the scientific community.  

Later this month, at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Diego, NAS and AAAS will lead a discussion of these important issues, examine points raised by the UEA/CRU situation, review best practices, and encourage scientists to develop standards for data access that work in their fields. The outcome of this special session must be explicit actions, as scientists must do much more now, and with urgency, to demonstrate that science is indeed self-correcting and worthy of the public’s trust.

– Ralph J. Cicerone
Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
*COSEPUP, Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age (National Academies
Press, Washington, DC, 2009). **On Being a Scientist (National Academies Press, ed. 3, Washington, DC, 2009).

Aonghas Shrugged · Accepted Answer

Is he correct?  He says that science has a huge public relations problem that has negatively impacted the relationship between science and society (over issues of trust).  Surely EVERYONE on both sides of the issues can agree that the negative publicity has indeed had a negative impact on such trust factors. No debate there, right?

But what does it all mean?  I get the impression that some are trying to tell me that I can now "breathe easy" about anything negative which climate scientists warn me about -- because "climate scientists have a huge P.R. problem."   Is that how it works?  Can I safely ignore climate science now that I am convinced that some climate scientists are jerks and behave badly?   For that matter, can I now ignore crime statistics in my city because the newspaper published a series of scandals about the city police department?  (Yes. Clearly the police are bad and so I can now ignore anything and everything they warn me about. After all, they are all just liars and have been bought off by evil interests. I'm sure glad that I can ignore them because I found the warnings about crime dangers very upsetting. And I don't want to pay the taxes which pay the police department salaries anyway.)

Incipient_planck · Answer

With all the rhetoric going on and seeing kids talk about being scared,  is it any wonder?   They declare climate change and the ultimate destruction of our environment and they have a captive audience.    Many will not even be alive when the predictions are to come true.    They say it doesn't matter because they are doing good.   When pen and teller did their bit about drinking water and the banning of it,  many of the activists fell for it.   This is the true issue here.    No debate and just accept their premises.   If science relied on consensus on everything,  new theories would have been abandoned.     Evidently political correctness have their own heresies,  religious tenants of a secular kind that are immutable.

Facts Matter · Answer

"...our understanding is undiminished by this incident; but it has raised concern about the standards of science and has damaged public trust in what scientists do."

"the *perceived* [my emphasis] misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole"

"It is essential that the scientific community work urgently to make standards for analyzing, reporting, providing access to, and stewardship of research data operational, while also establishing when requests for data amount to harassment or are otherwise unreasonable"

Yes, absolutely.

How about holding the Daily Mail or Fox News or Beck or Rush to the same kind of standards? After all, millions of people believe what they say.

? · Answer

of path he does not like Hillary. And what precisely in her record might lead him to think of any in a diverse way? as much as i think of it would be great to finally have a woman president, enable's settle for it, Hillary is a factor of what's pulling the Democrats to the "precise" (and by "precise" I mean in direction of the huge gov't neocons). seem at their respective information. Nader is conscious what maximum individuals forget approximately approximately that's that whether he won't be able to win, his working can help push subject concerns & recommendations and inspire human beings to think of and positioned across stress on different applicants to handle specific subject concerns. The extra precise the Democratic candidate, the extra significant that's for Nader to run with a view to attempt to hold public interest to subject concerns and to Hillary's record and so, attempt to tug the Democratic occasion back into status for American human beings's pastimes. I say he runs and pushes subject concerns approximately undemanding elections, democracy, company capability, genuine anti-conflict, professional-nicely-known wellbeing care, residing salary, stable preparation (fairly than preparation extra standardized company drones), civil rights, atmosphere, and so on, that heavily heavily isn't addressed by different applicants (and in the event that they are would be no longer something extra desirable than lipservice). in case you do no longer desire him to run, positioned stress on the different applicants to be intense approximately those forms of subject concerns, so he does not would desire to attempt to push those subject concerns. by ways, to the answerer who believes each rumor he hears: that is no longer actual that he have been given money from the GOP. notwithstanding that's actual that folk of all political affiliations (and human beings devoid of political affiliations) vote for him--because of the fact human beings of all diverse political affiliations like him and picture he may well be a stable president (fairly extra useful than the unhappy excuses for applicants the two occasion duopoly tries to make all human beings elect between). If the dems are so apprehensive approximately him removing votes, then answer me why might they in 2004, in states inclusive of Illinois, bypass a regulation allowing Bush on the pollbut paintings tirelessly to maintain Nader off?

Trending News

Is Ralph Cicerone correct?

4 Answers