The president of the AGU (American Geophysical Union), Mike McPhaden, has issued this
statement, and sent to all AGU members. I welcome this statement very much, as it is withstanding the temptation of giving up "principles of scientific integrity" for obtaining short-term advantages in gaining public attention. Science is a process with long-term perspectives, a social asset with value beyond the heat of the day. I value this statement in particular after having seen knee-jerk apologetic assertions, following the concept that "the opponent of my opponent is my friend". The assertion "
In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate." explains the situation well.
President's Message
We must remain committed to scientific integrity
27 February 2012
During the third week of February our global community of Earth and
space scientists witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an
accomplished AGU member who betrayed the principles of scientific
integrity. In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific
society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh
fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm
surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.
Peter Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics on 16 February, prior to admitting in a blog post that he obtained documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses. His
transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives. It is a
tragedy that requires us to stop and reflect on what we value as
scientists and how we want to be perceived by the public. Here are a few things that come immediately to mind:
- The success of the scientific enterprise depends on intellectual
rigor, truthfulness, and integrity on the part of everyone involved.
The vast majority of scientists uphold these values every day in their
work. That’s why opinion polls show that public trust in scientists is
among the highest of all professions. Public trust is essential because
it provides the foundation for society’s willingness to invest in
scientific exploration and discovery. It is the responsibility of every scientist to safeguard that trust.
- As a community of scientists, we must hold each other to the
highest ethical standards. This is why AGU established its Task Force
on Scientific Ethics, in 2011, to review and update existing policies
and procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct. Long before the
Heartland incident, we recognized the need to have clear and broad
principles and procedures that expressed the value of scientific
integrity and ethics embodied in our new strategic plan. More than
ever, AGU needs a clear set of guidelines that encompasses the full
range of scientific activities our members engage in. The task force,
now under the leadership of Linda Gundersen, director of the Office of
Science Quality and Integrity at the U.S. Geological Survey, will
complete its work with a renewed sense of urgency in view of recent
events. Union leadership will ensure that these standards of ethical
conduct are widely communicated to the membership and that they become
an integral part of AGU’s culture.
- All of this must be done with an eye to the future and to
nurturing the next generation of Earth and space scientists. Today’s
students must learn, especially through the example of senior
scientists, that adherence to high standards of scientific integrity
applies in all that we do: from research practices, to peer-reviewed
publications, to interactions with colleagues, and to engaging with the
public and policy makers. The lofty goal we set for ourselves of
providing benefit to society through our research can be achieved only
if we pursue our mission with the utmost honesty, transparency, and
rigor.
This has been one of the most trying times for me as president of
AGU, as it has been for many AGU volunteer leaders, members, and staff.
How different it is than celebrating the news of a new discovery or a
unique scholarly achievement. These rare and sad occasions remind us
that our actions reverberate through a global scientific community and
that we must remain committed as individuals and as a society to the
highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals.
Mike McPhaden
13 comments:
'.....and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.' - I almost wish he'd left that bit out. And confined the statement to ethics.
"The lofty goal we set for ourselves of providing benefit to society through our research can be achieved only if we pursue our mission with the utmost honesty, transparency, and rigor."
Let's see the rigor then.
So the high priest of the tribe of AGU enacted a purification rite:
"purification rite, any of the ceremonial acts or customs employed in an attempt to reestablish lost purity or to create a higher degree of purity in relation to the sacred (the transcendental realm) or the social and cultural realm. They are found in all known cultures and religions, both ancient and modern, preliterate and sophisticated, and assume a wide variety of types and forms."
(Sherry B. Ortner in Encyclopedia Britannica).
If only all problems in climate science (uncertainty management, policy advice, interaction with the public etc) could be solved in such a magical way!
Steve Fuller observes that by the end of the 21st century the sociology of scientific authority will probably look very much like the sociology of religious authority today.
+ my favourite from our very own Karl Popper:
"It is all guesswork, doxa rather than epistēmē… Science has no authority… It represents…our hope of emancipating ourselves from ignorance and narrow-mindedness, from fear and superstition. And this includes… the superstitious belief in the authority of science itself."
@4 Dear Mathis,
exactly when did Steve Fuller say that?
This is basically my byline since 2006 - although I failed to have it copyrighted :-)
I would have phrased it somewhat differently, though: "By the end of the 21st century, science historians (and the culture guys) will draw much fun - and funding - from the ongoings of "established" science in the era from (at the latest) the 1980s to the 20x0s. And the guys doing the analysis will most probably not be from the West ."
The funny part: I did not draw this conclusion from issues pertaining to Climate Science, but from looking just briefly at Epidemiology issues.
Could it be when looking at Climate Science, we are just examining one facette of a larger "development" - albeit the one with the most impact on politics and everyday life?
@HvS: if your are ever planning on doing a survey on "Skeptogenesis" and are in need of case studies, I hereby volunteer.
Dear RainerS,
to claim authority on these matters you have to prove writing your byline before Fuller published "Science - art of living" in 2011 (which is were I read it). Well, not merely writing it on some blog, but you need proof of having published it in a respectable journal – a high impact factor would certainly impress me. !And NO gray literature; You dont want to jeopardise your authority!
@Mathis Hampel
Is that Steve "Intelligent Design" Fuller who makes these impressive forecasts ?
Oh noooooo, I fell for a fool, a beguiler, a doofus!
Here's some of the 'rigor':
"Peter Gleick’s career isn’t over despite the big scar linked to his duping the Heartland Institute, says Kevin Trenberth, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. 'I think this pushes Peter in the direction of getting even more involved on the side of being an advocate,' Trenberth told ME on Friday. 'He's had a strong science background, especially related to water. I don't see this as the end of the road for Peter by any means.'"
For german speakers here is my bit on this
http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2012/03/die-heartlandtragodie-oder-warum-wissenschaftler-alle-nur-kleine-scheisser-sind-gerad-wie-alle-anderen-auch.php
Ich mach gerade eine Umfrage zu dem Thema, warum die Oeffentlichkeit Wissenschaftlern vertraut. Hier gehts zur Abstimmung:
http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2012/03/umfrage-warum-haben-sie-vertrauen-in-die-wissenschaft.php
Die Frage ist dabei letztlich, ob das individuelle Verhalten von Wissenschaftlern von Bedeutung ist.
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)