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.
'.....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.
ReplyDelete"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."
ReplyDeleteLet's see the rigor then.
So the high priest of the tribe of AGU enacted a purification rite:
ReplyDelete"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.
ReplyDelete+ my favourite from our very own Karl Popper:
ReplyDelete"It is all guesswork, doxa rather than epistÄ“mÄ“… 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."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@4 Dear Mathis,
ReplyDeleteexactly 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,
ReplyDeleteto 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
ReplyDeleteIs that Steve "Intelligent Design" Fuller who makes these impressive forecasts ?
Oh noooooo, I fell for a fool, a beguiler, a doofus!
ReplyDeleteHere's some of the 'rigor':
ReplyDelete"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
ReplyDeletehttp://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:
ReplyDeletehttp://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.