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)