Notebooks and data are fair game. Personal correspondence is not.
8
Thacker argues that emails by scientists with Federal support should be public record. But, in a classic bait and switch, he justifies this call for transparency with examples of corporate malfeasance. Plenty of scientists have argued for better disclosure in such cases.
The accusation by Rep. Smith that NOAA scientists misrepresented climate science for a political agenda does not deserve to be taken seriously. The problem isn’t that NOAA skewed results, it’s that Smith, recipient of large contributions from the fossil fuel industry, is trying to discredit scientists who reach conclusions he doesn’t like. That Thacker somehow turns this situation on its head to imply that it’s the scientists who are conflicted and not Smith is breathtaking in its twist of facts and logic.
More fundamentally, what does he expect to accomplish? If a study is well done, it will be supported independently. If not, sooner or later it will either be forgotten or challenged. What a scientist says to a colleague via email may be preliminary, wrong, or “(im)pure of heart”. But what matters is how well it stands scientific scrutiny. Digging into people’s emails may satisfy Thacker’s desires as a journalist – after all he gets paid for stories - but it won’t improve the scientific process. Journalists are famous for trying to protect their communications. I doubt very much that Thacker would advocate for full disclosure of his sources and notes in developing a story.
The accusation by Rep. Smith that NOAA scientists misrepresented climate science for a political agenda does not deserve to be taken seriously. The problem isn’t that NOAA skewed results, it’s that Smith, recipient of large contributions from the fossil fuel industry, is trying to discredit scientists who reach conclusions he doesn’t like. That Thacker somehow turns this situation on its head to imply that it’s the scientists who are conflicted and not Smith is breathtaking in its twist of facts and logic.
More fundamentally, what does he expect to accomplish? If a study is well done, it will be supported independently. If not, sooner or later it will either be forgotten or challenged. What a scientist says to a colleague via email may be preliminary, wrong, or “(im)pure of heart”. But what matters is how well it stands scientific scrutiny. Digging into people’s emails may satisfy Thacker’s desires as a journalist – after all he gets paid for stories - but it won’t improve the scientific process. Journalists are famous for trying to protect their communications. I doubt very much that Thacker would advocate for full disclosure of his sources and notes in developing a story.
3
Let's see Mr Thacker's and Lamar Smith's emails. Are they in communication with the Koch brothers? The fossil fuel industry? The Republican National Committee? Fox News?
23
The FBI and the CIA are paid for by taxpayers. Shpuld we demand their emails, too? And the President's? Every Congressman?
17
>
These FOIA requests are costly and time consuming political shenanigans more often than not, and they seldom turn up anything significant. Email is essentially thought and speech digitalized and as such should be treated the same way. That said, stop using email, pickup a phone, until they come after that.
These FOIA requests are costly and time consuming political shenanigans more often than not, and they seldom turn up anything significant. Email is essentially thought and speech digitalized and as such should be treated the same way. That said, stop using email, pickup a phone, until they come after that.
4
Thacker argues that emails by scientists with Federal support should be public record. But, in a classic bait and switch, he justifies this call for transparency with examples of corporate influence. Many scientists have called for improved disclosure of corporate-sponsored research for years.
The accusation by Rep. Smith that NOAA scientists misrepresented climate science for a political agenda does not deserve to be taken seriously. The problem isn’t that NOAA skewed results, it’s that Smith, recipient of large contributions from the fossil fuel industry, is trying to discredit scientists who reach conclusions he doesn’t like. That Thacker somehow turns this situation on its head to imply that it’s the scientists who are conflicted and not Smith is breathtaking in its twist of facts and logic.
More fundamentally, what does he expect to accomplish? If a study is well done, it will be supported independently. If not, sooner or later it will either be forgotten or challenged. What a scientist says to a colleague via email may be preliminary, wrong, or “(im)pure of heart”. But what matters is how well it stands scientific scrutiny. Digging into people’s emails may satisfy Thacker’s desires as a journalist – after all he gets paid for stories - but it won’t improve the scientific process. Journalists are famous for trying to protect their communications. I doubt very much that Thacker would advocate for full disclosure of his sources and notes in developing a story.
The accusation by Rep. Smith that NOAA scientists misrepresented climate science for a political agenda does not deserve to be taken seriously. The problem isn’t that NOAA skewed results, it’s that Smith, recipient of large contributions from the fossil fuel industry, is trying to discredit scientists who reach conclusions he doesn’t like. That Thacker somehow turns this situation on its head to imply that it’s the scientists who are conflicted and not Smith is breathtaking in its twist of facts and logic.
More fundamentally, what does he expect to accomplish? If a study is well done, it will be supported independently. If not, sooner or later it will either be forgotten or challenged. What a scientist says to a colleague via email may be preliminary, wrong, or “(im)pure of heart”. But what matters is how well it stands scientific scrutiny. Digging into people’s emails may satisfy Thacker’s desires as a journalist – after all he gets paid for stories - but it won’t improve the scientific process. Journalists are famous for trying to protect their communications. I doubt very much that Thacker would advocate for full disclosure of his sources and notes in developing a story.
29
"Some of what we know about abusive practices in science — whether it concerns tobacco, pharmaceuticals, chemicals or even climate change — has come from reading scientists’ emails."
How gullible does someone need to be in order to believe this line of so-called reasoning? A comparable argument would say, "We've caught some murderers by searching their person and their residence; therefore we should be able to search anyone's person and residence."
Mr. Thacker, that is precisely why the law has come up with the requirement of "probably cause" before a warrant to search such things is granted.
Another ridiculous quote from this piece is "And if you think of all scientists at universities as pure at heart, think again."
Aha — so the fact that like all groups of human beings, there are some scientists who engage in bad behavior means that all scientists are under suspicion? By that reasoning, the stories of Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and others mean that we should consider Paul D. Thacker as a potential murderer. I mean, who knows? We better subpoena his e-mails.
How gullible does someone need to be in order to believe this line of so-called reasoning? A comparable argument would say, "We've caught some murderers by searching their person and their residence; therefore we should be able to search anyone's person and residence."
Mr. Thacker, that is precisely why the law has come up with the requirement of "probably cause" before a warrant to search such things is granted.
Another ridiculous quote from this piece is "And if you think of all scientists at universities as pure at heart, think again."
Aha — so the fact that like all groups of human beings, there are some scientists who engage in bad behavior means that all scientists are under suspicion? By that reasoning, the stories of Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and others mean that we should consider Paul D. Thacker as a potential murderer. I mean, who knows? We better subpoena his e-mails.
13
THis guy worked for Chuck Grassley so we can be pretty certain this is a political statement. The scientists publish their science and how they came to their conclusions. If you want to attack them, disprove their science. Thacker knows as well as I do, this is a ploy to go after them personally.
17
The author would do well to acquaint himself with scientific method and practice. If he is interested in transparency about research, emails are the wrong place to look - such communications won't reveal anything useful about data analysis. In fact, they may be more misleading than useful. If you want to understand how a study was done, you'd be better off talking to peers and reading lab journals. That's where you'll find the track that leads from raw data to finished study. Hounding scientists for emails is the easiest way to make a free thinking and creative community and turn them into an ineffective and paranoid group of people. Is that what you want?
5
OK, Mr. Thacker. I need to see all your emails on this subject to determine what your background, scientific training, and prejudices are. Of course, comments about your golf game might be germane in figuring these out.
What you are asking for is about as germane to climate science as comments about your golf game are to your qualifications to have an opinion about this subject. As pointed out by other commenters, the relevant information (funding, etc) are already part of the public record.
You have fallen victim to the lie that there are two equal sides to these arguments. The actual weights are much different. the equation is something like Truth = a x Science +b x GOP politicians, where a = 1000 and b = .0001.
So like Susan Anderson is spot on that the NYT is "on the wrong side of facts, the wrong side of history, and has done active harm to public understanding of the climate change and global warming."
What you are asking for is about as germane to climate science as comments about your golf game are to your qualifications to have an opinion about this subject. As pointed out by other commenters, the relevant information (funding, etc) are already part of the public record.
You have fallen victim to the lie that there are two equal sides to these arguments. The actual weights are much different. the equation is something like Truth = a x Science +b x GOP politicians, where a = 1000 and b = .0001.
So like Susan Anderson is spot on that the NYT is "on the wrong side of facts, the wrong side of history, and has done active harm to public understanding of the climate change and global warming."
4
I read only the first few sentences. Let me ask you: Is there any person, or group of persons, who are entrusted with advising and/or reporting to the government that you would allow to have a private conversation/communication with their peers as they worked their way to a decision? If there is anyone you would allow such privacy, then you should certainly extend it to any group of academics so entrusted. I would exclude scientists working for private concerns.
3
So, a former adviser to Chuck Grassley thinks we should make scientists' emails available to "the public"? How surprising.
Personally, I would prefer to make the emails of Congress-people and their 'advisers' public.
Personally, I would prefer to make the emails of Congress-people and their 'advisers' public.
7
Members of Congress and their staff work for the government. Should all of their emails be made public absent any allegations of wrongdoing?
5
Journalism is a critical part of our society, causing political winds to change, impacting lives, steering opinion.
I fondly wait for the author of this article to make ALL is emails public. Also ALL his conversations with his editors about how it will be written, any interactions he's had with outside sources, conflicts of interest, and any remuneration he may have received from anyone at all in the last five years.
Transparency?
I fondly wait for the author of this article to make ALL is emails public. Also ALL his conversations with his editors about how it will be written, any interactions he's had with outside sources, conflicts of interest, and any remuneration he may have received from anyone at all in the last five years.
Transparency?
7
Paul Thacker has a point, of course. But he's left out a few things.
1. Lamar Smith doesn't "disagree," with the overwhelming consensus on climate change. Disagreement's based on scientific knowledge, and willingness to look at the facts. Smith DENIES clmate change, based on right-wing conspiracy theory, lousy knowldge, and a refusal to look at facts.
2. It's one thing to want to see relevant documents. It's another to just go fishing with dynamite. Especially since this is what, the 19th time these guys have pulled this? Especially since so far they've found nothing from "Researchgate," to Benghazi on?
3. It's one thing to go fishing when there's some evidence of crime--and quite another when there's no such thing, and you just want to go fishing. The point here's to sabotage the science, and it's coming from people who've been actively doing just that.
So on behalf of the People, I demand Smith's e-mails. And his staff's. And anybody's in his family who works for an oil company or right-wing media. Oh, and his legal team's. And anything else.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
1. Lamar Smith doesn't "disagree," with the overwhelming consensus on climate change. Disagreement's based on scientific knowledge, and willingness to look at the facts. Smith DENIES clmate change, based on right-wing conspiracy theory, lousy knowldge, and a refusal to look at facts.
2. It's one thing to want to see relevant documents. It's another to just go fishing with dynamite. Especially since this is what, the 19th time these guys have pulled this? Especially since so far they've found nothing from "Researchgate," to Benghazi on?
3. It's one thing to go fishing when there's some evidence of crime--and quite another when there's no such thing, and you just want to go fishing. The point here's to sabotage the science, and it's coming from people who've been actively doing just that.
So on behalf of the People, I demand Smith's e-mails. And his staff's. And anybody's in his family who works for an oil company or right-wing media. Oh, and his legal team's. And anything else.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
15
Normally when I read something like this right wing witch hunt my inclination is say those emails are private communications and the Congressman is not entitled to them.
However in this case I and I think many Americans would be able to accept the following deal
The NSA reportedly was listening to the Israeli government talking to several American Lawmakers in regards to the Iran Nuke deal
So here's my proposal
A copy of every NSA "tape" which has a Republican Lawmaker chatting with a Foreign Government about the Iran Nuclear treaty, will be released to the general public.
Then after the release of those intercepts, the Scientists will have 3 days in which to furnish all emails that the Congressman wants.
The Congressman himself will within 3 days of the NSA tape being made public will release his cell phone call logs and office phone call logs for the period in which he has been seeking the records
As well as all of his emails during the same period.
Dispute solved!
Simple as that...
However in this case I and I think many Americans would be able to accept the following deal
The NSA reportedly was listening to the Israeli government talking to several American Lawmakers in regards to the Iran Nuke deal
So here's my proposal
A copy of every NSA "tape" which has a Republican Lawmaker chatting with a Foreign Government about the Iran Nuclear treaty, will be released to the general public.
Then after the release of those intercepts, the Scientists will have 3 days in which to furnish all emails that the Congressman wants.
The Congressman himself will within 3 days of the NSA tape being made public will release his cell phone call logs and office phone call logs for the period in which he has been seeking the records
As well as all of his emails during the same period.
Dispute solved!
Simple as that...
6
Thacker, get a warrant. A real one, based on something other than "I want it."
I mean, I want to see each and every e-mail you ever sent or received. Lamar Smith, too. I'm positive you're up to something, I just plain am. And I have Rights.
By the way, the point of what Smith's doing--and what Thacker's helping him do--is intimidation. And it's meant to cost the people and institutions time, energy, money, that they could spend on actual work.
This stuff doesn't get organized by elves, you know. And nobody with a grain of sense sends the Witchfinder General a darn thing without legal representation.
And then know what happens? Smith's staffers start the usual circus of cherrypicked, edited leaking. Fox and Rush pick it up and start screaming. This widens the pogrom, and good people are stuck and will never, ever have any recourse.
Which is, of course, the point: the Washington two-step.
I mean, I want to see each and every e-mail you ever sent or received. Lamar Smith, too. I'm positive you're up to something, I just plain am. And I have Rights.
By the way, the point of what Smith's doing--and what Thacker's helping him do--is intimidation. And it's meant to cost the people and institutions time, energy, money, that they could spend on actual work.
This stuff doesn't get organized by elves, you know. And nobody with a grain of sense sends the Witchfinder General a darn thing without legal representation.
And then know what happens? Smith's staffers start the usual circus of cherrypicked, edited leaking. Fox and Rush pick it up and start screaming. This widens the pogrom, and good people are stuck and will never, ever have any recourse.
Which is, of course, the point: the Washington two-step.
14
I would rather get permanent access to the emails of House & Senate members & their legislative assistants.
There is much more of interest there in terms of conflicts of interest, bribery (aka "reelection 'contributions' "), favors for services rendered, etc., than in emails of most scientists.
Congress might also restore funding for research instead of cutting it & expecting scientists to willingly starve. Researchers need $$ to do their work. If not from government, it will be from corporations. However, Congress has chopped funding, frequently at the behest of corporations (now also "people" thanks to SCOTUS), it is ingenuous to complain that scientists turn to whomever is willing to fund them while cutting their $$.
The same cannot be said of Representatives & Senators or the corporations who buy & sell them for their own interests & convenience. Look at this article in today's paper (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts...®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront).
Sure, there are scientists who cheat & they should be tarred & feathered. However, percentage wise, there are more "representatives" who do so. Everything done by representatives is supposedly done for their constituents; open the emails of Congress, then ask for emails of scientists.
There is much more of interest there in terms of conflicts of interest, bribery (aka "reelection 'contributions' "), favors for services rendered, etc., than in emails of most scientists.
Congress might also restore funding for research instead of cutting it & expecting scientists to willingly starve. Researchers need $$ to do their work. If not from government, it will be from corporations. However, Congress has chopped funding, frequently at the behest of corporations (now also "people" thanks to SCOTUS), it is ingenuous to complain that scientists turn to whomever is willing to fund them while cutting their $$.
The same cannot be said of Representatives & Senators or the corporations who buy & sell them for their own interests & convenience. Look at this article in today's paper (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts...®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront).
Sure, there are scientists who cheat & they should be tarred & feathered. However, percentage wise, there are more "representatives" who do so. Everything done by representatives is supposedly done for their constituents; open the emails of Congress, then ask for emails of scientists.
6
It is unfortunate that, in a drive to understand the entirety of the thought process of scientists working on politically charged topics, the author places ALL scientists under a cloud of suspicion via the aggressive and contentious tone of the article.
I am particularly disturbed by the title-injunction "Scientists, Give Up Your Email". The public must understand that the overwhelming majority of us 1) have never been asked to (so don't make it sound like we're resisting when we haven't done a thing!!), and 2) would have absolutely ZERO problems doing so as, in the overwhelming majority of cases, there is NOTHING TO HIDE.
Of course, if the point is to engage in resource-wasting witch-hunts when it is already incredibly difficult and painful to function in science today, then, yes, expect people to resist and demand equal transparency at all levels of public office so that the playing field for the witch-hunting be made equal to all parties involved. Deal?
I am particularly disturbed by the title-injunction "Scientists, Give Up Your Email". The public must understand that the overwhelming majority of us 1) have never been asked to (so don't make it sound like we're resisting when we haven't done a thing!!), and 2) would have absolutely ZERO problems doing so as, in the overwhelming majority of cases, there is NOTHING TO HIDE.
Of course, if the point is to engage in resource-wasting witch-hunts when it is already incredibly difficult and painful to function in science today, then, yes, expect people to resist and demand equal transparency at all levels of public office so that the playing field for the witch-hunting be made equal to all parties involved. Deal?
7
Is the NYT sure Thacker isn't working for Lamar Smith and his anti-science, anti-climate change associates (both corporate and congressional)? Hastily read, this piece could lead many non-scientists to conclude that Smith's insistence on open emails is not merely reasonable but in the public interest. Thacker's use of the term "transparency" isn't transparent at all as anyone who wants to give it some thought can easily understand. Or is his argument just another rube to keep us all thinking about Hillary's emails?
4
... While you're at it, raid their homes and the correspondence of their families. Surely there will be evidence of misconduct somewhere among all of the run-of-the-mill personal information we could use to defame their characters.
8
Dear Paul Thacker,
There are good substantive arguments on both sides of this issue, which
don't seem to recognize.
Nonetheless I'm also disappointed in PLOS. Deal with disagreements by having further conversations in your (virtual) pages, not by retroactively
removing reviewed articles from your (virtual) rag.
There are good substantive arguments on both sides of this issue, which
don't seem to recognize.
Nonetheless I'm also disappointed in PLOS. Deal with disagreements by having further conversations in your (virtual) pages, not by retroactively
removing reviewed articles from your (virtual) rag.
Of course scientists should give up their e-mails. It's been a few years since the last time the Republican leadership twisted scientists' e-mails grossly out of context to slander them. We wouldn't want to deprive the Republicans of more material to lie about, would we?
3
Mr. Lamar Smith is a servant of the public. I'd like all of his emails made public, so we can know if he is connected with any industry that might effect the climate one way or another.
2
Emails, like all other forms of communication, should be under the control of the sender/speaker unless there is adequate proof of a criminal act to allow for a court issued subpoena. Allowing an executive or Congressional group to intrude into the world of research, simply for the fun of it, or for political hay making is an affront to scientist, scientific research, and the Constitution.
3
An e-mail is not a work product. Reports and analysis are work products. Scientists should be allowed to communicate with each other while they are conducting their work without having some antagonistic politician who opposes the very science they are examining trying to cherry pick their communication for political purposes. The intent of the Senator in this case is clearly to discredit the work of the scientists who published something his benefactors don't like. Do so based the report that has been issued.
3
What they will find in emails will be different than what they are looking for. This is yet another anti-science witch hunt. Looking for conspiracies where they don't exis, or taking select pieces of discussion out of context to say there is dissention. If the Government scientists have to give up their emails, so should the Republicans and their corporate backers. They are Government Employees after all! Lamar Smith should be the first one to give up his emails.
3
Journalists working for the New York Times routinely refuse to divulge emails. It is not just a matter of protection of sources of information. The human thinking process requires private speculations, many of which will turn out to be dead ends. The maker and reader of the email know the difference between thinking out loud and making public conclusions after sorting through all the hunches, doubts, and unsupported hypotheses. However, the intrusive reader of the private speculations, usually biased, enjoys a gotcha moment.
The same problem applies to the Snowden revelations and even the Clinton emails. People in government, the press, and in science have to be free to think in private spaces. In private, everyone has to be able to be wrong in order to create a righteous public path forward.
The same problem applies to the Snowden revelations and even the Clinton emails. People in government, the press, and in science have to be free to think in private spaces. In private, everyone has to be able to be wrong in order to create a righteous public path forward.
2
As a taxpayer, I'd rather have access to the emails of military contractors, agricultural companies, oil companies & pharmaceutical companies when they "negotiate" with our esteemed government representatives at all levels for the trillions in welfare they receive from us.
3
Scientists are generally loath to enter the public domain, beside within the protected arena of peer reviewed publications, for what they perceive as good reason. Scientists are not usually born communicators. There are numerous instances of their public or private pronouncements being taken out of context, "climategate" being just one recent example. Consequently there is reasonable concern that partisan scrutiny of unguarded comments within confidential communications is a recipe for trouble.
A balance needs to be struck between the need for suitable levels of transparency around publicly funded research - which includes not just government but also much university research - and the need for open and honest communication between experts in the field.
A balance needs to be struck between the need for suitable levels of transparency around publicly funded research - which includes not just government but also much university research - and the need for open and honest communication between experts in the field.
1
It is true that science should be open. Findings are of little value if the evidence on which they are based is not also available to verify them and, where possible, repeat them. Models are only of value where it clear what base data was used to construct and validate them. But the suggestion that scientist's emails should be open is bizarre.
If scientists' private emails should be fair game because their work is publically funded, then all politician's emai should also be fully accessible (and how likely is that). If scientists' emails should be public then why should not journalists'? After all, they too have a supposed obligation to be fair and balanced.
Why should scientists be held to an impractical standard to allow charlatans like Sen. Lamar Smith muckrake and deliberately misinterpret their writings? I know it would make science journalists like Mr. Thacker's lives easier but at the price of slowing work to a crawl as every communication has to be scrutinsed and equivocated to prevent its being used as a weapon against the author.
If scientists' private emails should be fair game because their work is publically funded, then all politician's emai should also be fully accessible (and how likely is that). If scientists' emails should be public then why should not journalists'? After all, they too have a supposed obligation to be fair and balanced.
Why should scientists be held to an impractical standard to allow charlatans like Sen. Lamar Smith muckrake and deliberately misinterpret their writings? I know it would make science journalists like Mr. Thacker's lives easier but at the price of slowing work to a crawl as every communication has to be scrutinsed and equivocated to prevent its being used as a weapon against the author.
3
Every person is capable of saying or writing a bone headed thing in an unguarded, unscripted, moment. People sort out and refine thoughts by writing. Good writing is hard work. Scientific writing is even harder work because is part of a much more scrutinized logic driven and data driven environment. People who publish scientific work know that their work is about to be scrutinized by many very smart people who will pick at every loose thread they may leave. The NOAA folks have put all their data and reasoning out for that very scrutiny with each paper already. Thinking that what is in an email is a better reflection of intended contributions to our society than what is in finished public papers suggests how much Thacker, Cruz, L.Smith and others do not have a grasp on science in its most fundamental form. They do however show a grasp of power and the nature of power. As long as their districts vote them into office they have so far proved they are determined to be about the business of dismantling any public scientific work that does not advance their own narrow mindedness. Is it merely an inability to grasp the very hard work contained in public scientific writing which motivates their desire to focus on minutia within the pre-scientific thoughts that inhabit informal email? If so and even if raw greed for power does not motivate them is that not also an ongoing corruption of public welfare to which they were entrusted?
3
Would anyone seriously suggest that all telephone conversations between scientists be made public?? One needs a search warrant to tap phone lines.
Yesterday's phone conversations are today's e-mails.
Some aspects of research properly belong in the public domain. This is what journals and reports to funding agencies are for.
But every phone conversation and e-mail in the preliminary parts of an investigation is absurd.
Yesterday's phone conversations are today's e-mails.
Some aspects of research properly belong in the public domain. This is what journals and reports to funding agencies are for.
But every phone conversation and e-mail in the preliminary parts of an investigation is absurd.
3
We really need access to all emails of corporations chartered by states since, obviously they are publicly traded corporations and the public interest demands transparency. For example, emails about which Superpacs to fund with corporate money would be of interest to shareholders in thinking about whether to challenge board members election at annual meetings. Meanwhile, who cares if scientists have their ideas stolen by corporations through suits compelling release of scientific research in emails, since after all that is transparency serving the public interest, right?
3
I think the "MacGuffin" here is that virtually all of the examples that Thacker uses to bolster his case for total transparency are scientists working for financially interested corporations, who probably should have a duty to comply with requests for email and document transparency. He then uses these cases to argue that those climate scientists, who are not in the pay of corporations with a potential interest in skewing results, also owe a duty of total transparency.
Stepping back to take a wider view, it is clear to anyone familiar with the well worn tactics of the anti climate science forces out there, that there may be genuine requests for transparency to clarify the science but, in reality, most of these ingenuous requests are devious bad faith initiatives which are politically motivated and the aim of which is to vexatiously muddy the scientific waters by creating doubt, delay and spurious uncertainty.
Stepping back to take a wider view, it is clear to anyone familiar with the well worn tactics of the anti climate science forces out there, that there may be genuine requests for transparency to clarify the science but, in reality, most of these ingenuous requests are devious bad faith initiatives which are politically motivated and the aim of which is to vexatiously muddy the scientific waters by creating doubt, delay and spurious uncertainty.
4
If scientists suffer such terminal existential pudendal shame over sharing their emails with the taxpayers who pay their salaries and expenses and are affected by their conclusions, then let them fund their own research.
Emails are no different than research notes--an essential part of the research. If the public can't see the entire provenance of the research, they shouldn't be paying for it. Better to do without.
Emails are no different than research notes--an essential part of the research. If the public can't see the entire provenance of the research, they shouldn't be paying for it. Better to do without.
3
Representative Lamar Smith as chairman of the House Committee on Science has an analog in the inmates running the insane asylum. Was ever anyone as ill-matched for the position?
6
Anyone saying that secret deliberation is necessary in science, or saying that scientific discussion of the research could somehow be misconstrued as malicious intent, is clearly letting their political affiliation distort their logic.
These civil employees need to adhere by the oversight committee's requests. Not only are they now making up their own version of science but now they think they are above the rules of our Republic, and the sad part is that liberals are letting their ideology make them think that this is fine. Hypocrites, idiots, and suckers, the lot of them.
These civil employees need to adhere by the oversight committee's requests. Not only are they now making up their own version of science but now they think they are above the rules of our Republic, and the sad part is that liberals are letting their ideology make them think that this is fine. Hypocrites, idiots, and suckers, the lot of them.
1
The beauty of science is, false results are revealed... by more science. If there is reason to suspect chicanery, we already have mehanisms for obtaining emails and other communications (subpeona's, anyone?)
As the "climate-gate" email (non-scandal) scandal clearly illustrates, simply allowing public access to private communications creates enormous opportunity for cherry picking, misrepresentation and misinterpretation. Shall we require all scientists funded by government agencies to record all personal conversations? Phone calls, side discussions in the hallway and conferences.
Requiring de facto public access to scientific emails is. A terrible. Idea.
As the "climate-gate" email (non-scandal) scandal clearly illustrates, simply allowing public access to private communications creates enormous opportunity for cherry picking, misrepresentation and misinterpretation. Shall we require all scientists funded by government agencies to record all personal conversations? Phone calls, side discussions in the hallway and conferences.
Requiring de facto public access to scientific emails is. A terrible. Idea.
4
Let's see if I get this. Corporate "scientist" shills regularly lie to the public. The carbon energy corporations set up all sorts of shill organizations and think tanks to cast doubts on the clear and obvious nature of global warming which all of the actual science organizations all over the world agree is happening and is being caused by greenhouse gas emissions from humans. Because of this, actual scientists must give over all of their correspondence to the Republicans. How about this instead, Donors Trust, the Koch Foundation, and Exxon/Mobil, which fund all of the denials and falsehoods, give over all of their records first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donors_Trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donors_Trust
5
I smell an axiom in the making!
"The desire of a politician to see scientist's emails rises in direct proportion to their wish to deny the associated data and results."
"The desire of a politician to see scientist's emails rises in direct proportion to their wish to deny the associated data and results."
9
I agree with the earlier comment by pjd.
An email is typically little more than a textual representation of water cooler chat. If people really want to understand a scientific finding, they can look at the research. Either they agree with the research, or not. Emails aren't going to help them better understand the research, or give them any kind of insight into the research.
We ask for access to emails from our leaders because they make decisions and we don't usually have access to the thinking, the research, into those decisions. The emails are all we have to provide insight into a specific decision.
But the same is not true for scientific findings, because along with the findings, scientists provide the data and the processes used to form the conclusions and findings. They provide everything a logical, reasonable peer needs to either agree or refute the finding.
Politicians asking for scientists emails do so only because they want to pick out bits and pieces, out of context, out of scope and flow, in order to undermine the finding. They do so, because they don't have the science, or frankly, the ability to undermine it using scientific procedure.
An email is typically little more than a textual representation of water cooler chat. If people really want to understand a scientific finding, they can look at the research. Either they agree with the research, or not. Emails aren't going to help them better understand the research, or give them any kind of insight into the research.
We ask for access to emails from our leaders because they make decisions and we don't usually have access to the thinking, the research, into those decisions. The emails are all we have to provide insight into a specific decision.
But the same is not true for scientific findings, because along with the findings, scientists provide the data and the processes used to form the conclusions and findings. They provide everything a logical, reasonable peer needs to either agree or refute the finding.
Politicians asking for scientists emails do so only because they want to pick out bits and pieces, out of context, out of scope and flow, in order to undermine the finding. They do so, because they don't have the science, or frankly, the ability to undermine it using scientific procedure.
6
Thacker was a senate staffer for Iowa Republican senator Grassley who is a climate change denier and one of the dimmest bulbs in the Senate. Seems to be a credibility issue here.
12
The public should be alarmed alright. Alarmed that the anti-science politicians on the right are engaging in their patented Orwellian tactics to intimidate scientific investigation that punctures the bubble of their alternate reality.
16
All research funded by the public (taxpayers), and all reports emanating from that research, should be freely accessible to the public. That means all journal publications reporting public-funded research should be freely accessible to the public. Currently, most scientific journals (e.g., Proceeding of the National Academy of Science) require a hefty fee to view articles that they publish, including articles reporting research done at public (taxpayer) expense. The US scientific establishment operates like a "good ol' boys" network, and is long overdue for a revolution. If they refuse to make their work freely accessible to the people who pay for it, CUT OFF THEIR FUNDING.
1
A disingenuos essay. The call, in the name of ‘transparency’, for information at this extreme level of detail does not come from a wish for oversight, but from a desire to frustrate the workings of science in favour of the prior prejudices of the antiscientific cabal currently in command of congress. Sadly, since the last presidency, scientists are obliged to assume in the first instance that such calls are not made in good faith; when unreasonable, they should be repelled.
13
How about the emails from all of the politicians? They're on our payroll directly. They're much more likely to be crooked than scientists. Since you were working for a senator, presumably, you were paid by the government also? I'd like to see your emails to make sure you didn't have any ulterior motives.
13
Do you really want to wade through all of the junk mail which I would have to save so I wouldn't be accused of deleting any email?
5
Seems a tad ironic to see a piece like this that obliquely criticizes NOAA’s research results and by implication, climate change, published in the same week that a Science article makes clear that we have entered a new epoch, the Anthropocene.
Who’s going to get us out of that mess, if anyone? Certainly not the current chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Get out of the way if you can’t lend a hand, skeptics, because the times certainly are changing, and not in a good way. Let scientists do their work and stop making science seem like the bad guy.
Who’s going to get us out of that mess, if anyone? Certainly not the current chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Get out of the way if you can’t lend a hand, skeptics, because the times certainly are changing, and not in a good way. Let scientists do their work and stop making science seem like the bad guy.
10
The premise of this article is absurd. Government-funded scientists should have to give up all their email? So, it's open season on every hard drive belonging to a professor that has an NSF or NIH grant? Suddenly, private citizens have no right to privacy?
Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for billionaire donors to funnel money into our politicians' pockets via super-PACs?
How truly sick our political system is becoming.
Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for billionaire donors to funnel money into our politicians' pockets via super-PACs?
How truly sick our political system is becoming.
24
Yeah Paul, your idea falls apart as soon as you factor in the fact that there's not even a hint of wrongdoing by the scientists. Add the certainty that this is an obvious effort to distort the truth and we have every reason to tell the esteemed congressman to go pound sand.
10
When WIlliam Cronon (a scientist at the University of Wisconsin) wrote a piece on his personal blog outlining the tactics of ALEC, the Wisconsin Republican Party filed an Open Records Law request requiring EVERY electronic correspondence Dr. Cronon had received or sent containing the terms "Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell."
This was certainly a broadside intended not to encourage scientists to be "transparent" about their research, but instead to intimidate scientists to be quiet--in their capacity as scientists or as private citizens--when it comes to any politically-sensitive subjects. And "politically-sensitive" subjects are determined to be thus when someone decides to make political hay out of them.
There is a reason why scientists chafe at "transparency." It's not because they think their data is proprietary. It's because there has been a pattern of witch-hunting (primarily from the political right) already established. "Transparency" to the political right is a method to intimidate scientists into shutting up.
This was certainly a broadside intended not to encourage scientists to be "transparent" about their research, but instead to intimidate scientists to be quiet--in their capacity as scientists or as private citizens--when it comes to any politically-sensitive subjects. And "politically-sensitive" subjects are determined to be thus when someone decides to make political hay out of them.
There is a reason why scientists chafe at "transparency." It's not because they think their data is proprietary. It's because there has been a pattern of witch-hunting (primarily from the political right) already established. "Transparency" to the political right is a method to intimidate scientists into shutting up.
18
Here you go: Let's have Congressman Lamar Smith give all his emails (that is, emails to his wife, to his donors, etc.) to scientists, plus give the scientists a few million dollars so that they can hire minions to go over Smith's emails and publish phrases out of context. If Smith finds this "transparency" reasonable, then we'll know he's serious. Otherwise Smith is a sham. As is Thacker.
22
Anybody can read the final result and have access to the same data. Why isn't that transparent enough?
7
The title of your article is:
"Scientists, Give Up Your Emails"
Here is a sentence from your article.
"In turn, scientists are free to fight these information requests or seek to narrow the scope of the inquiries to protect against what they believe threatens the integrity of the scientific process or chills research."
So the scientists are fighting the information requests like you say they can, but you complain about it. You need to write a logically coherent article in order to make a point.
"Scientists, Give Up Your Emails"
Here is a sentence from your article.
"In turn, scientists are free to fight these information requests or seek to narrow the scope of the inquiries to protect against what they believe threatens the integrity of the scientific process or chills research."
So the scientists are fighting the information requests like you say they can, but you complain about it. You need to write a logically coherent article in order to make a point.
15
Science is politics today.
1
Transparency is best; but consider, would Lamar give up his emails? Why not? Isn't he a government employee? Or is he paid by someone else?
9
Most people, yes most people, have not the foggiest idea what science is or why we do it the way we do. Demonstrate to me and to the greater scientific community that you are qualified to evaluate my scientific correspondence and you can have full access. Until then, please qualify both yourself and your statements.
8
I disagree.
How would you behave if you knew that your emails and your ideas were open to anyone? You'd write a lot less and make more phone calls. I know since I communicated with a lot of scientists and I learned a lot more from phone calls than emails.
If you want scientists to have open emails, then it should be universal, not just the smartest and most-hardworking segment of society.
Open emails is a bad idea.
How would you behave if you knew that your emails and your ideas were open to anyone? You'd write a lot less and make more phone calls. I know since I communicated with a lot of scientists and I learned a lot more from phone calls than emails.
If you want scientists to have open emails, then it should be universal, not just the smartest and most-hardworking segment of society.
Open emails is a bad idea.
6
Would it help if the emails were released without the names of both the writer and the recipient(s) but provide an ID code instead? Then at least the issue of harassment would have gone away.
... "Mr. Smith subpoenaed the emails of the agency’s scientists, citing whistle-blowers who say that the study had been rushed to publication. NOAA has denied this request, and some within the scientific community have called Mr. Smith’s demands a witch hunt.".....
I do not know how true or not true this statement is, or what if anything is being left out or misrepresented to make a point. As in most op-eds, I suspect facts are being hand-picked. That being said, ANY emails by ANY person paid by the U.S Government, and sent over government computer systems, MUST be freely available.... although of course sensitive defense or security material is obviously an exception. This type of information does not fall into that category.
I do not know how true or not true this statement is, or what if anything is being left out or misrepresented to make a point. As in most op-eds, I suspect facts are being hand-picked. That being said, ANY emails by ANY person paid by the U.S Government, and sent over government computer systems, MUST be freely available.... although of course sensitive defense or security material is obviously an exception. This type of information does not fall into that category.
Personally I think Lamar Smith should have to give up his emails. After all, we don't know his conflicts of interest. Maybe they should follow that california proposition and have senators and congressmen tattoo the names of their biggest donors on their foreheads
13
All journalists and United States senators should be compelled to make their emails public.
7
Sure, just as we should make the emails and conversations (all should be recorded, constantly) of all the government employees, including Senators, aids, presidents, etc public. ESPECIALLY top secret, because, that is of course where the transgressions occur. If you have issues with that, and many good reasons for those issues, consider that the communications of researchers might also have their reasons, none of them involving unethical behavior or scientific conspiracies.
8
"And if you think of all scientists at universities as pure at heart, think again." Wow, the author implied that politicians are pure at heart? Hmm, I really have to think many times.
19
No surprises here, politicians are bought all the time, why not scientists?
It's amazing what can be rationalized in the name of greed and profit.
It's amazing what can be rationalized in the name of greed and profit.
2
As a scientist I can tell you that a frequent interplay between colleagues is to challenge the methods, data, and conclusions of our fellow scientists. Not because we disagree with them or because we think they are in error, but rather to help point out any weaknesses, to stimulate thinking, to propose future investigations and studies, to help formulate a better presentation of the material. This is a common everyday practice. This kind of interaction, which would often appear in emails would easily be open to misinterpretation or abuse by those outside the system, who don't understand how scientists work or who are seeking the emails to push some personal agenda. Further the knowledge that their emails could be under scrutiny would have a chilling effect on what would otherwise be an open and fertile process of scientific interaction. In general it would be a very bad idea.
35
WA,
If anyone had questions, you could address these as you would during any journal review process, and simply clarify or amen, or win the debate if any would ensue.
If that is chilling to you or to science - it should toughen itself up, just as during a review period. Another idea would be to open the entire process (especially when taxpayer funded) open, allowing a forum for discussion.
Open and fertile you said - right?
If anyone had questions, you could address these as you would during any journal review process, and simply clarify or amen, or win the debate if any would ensue.
If that is chilling to you or to science - it should toughen itself up, just as during a review period. Another idea would be to open the entire process (especially when taxpayer funded) open, allowing a forum for discussion.
Open and fertile you said - right?
1
OUR publicly funded universities have been hijacked by the profit-uber-alles virus and it does not serve OUR democracy. It must stop. NO publicly funded university or staff should be allowed to take money from private business except as university-wide endowments. It should be against the law for new products or services developed in OUR publicly funded universities to be sold to the highest private bidder with all the profits going into their pockets. If educators want to be business people they can leave the protection of OUR publicly funded education facilities and join the corporate world.
4
Can you imagine the rubes who think health insurance is bad, war brings peace, Sharia law is trumping (pun!) the Constitution and more guns mean less crime...can you imagine them trying to read, comprehend and understand technical correspondence between scientists? You know, people who have higher than a 6th grade education?
30
This article is point on. Too many fail to realize that precedents set by one administration will be available to following administrations be the R, D or what have you. Transparency is imperative in science as well as government generally.
7
Challenge the science. This will be used to attack them personally. The problem is they can't attack the science.
1
How about transparency about where all of the donations that fund the climate denialism think tanks come from? Don't you think corporate transparency is an imperative also?
4
Hey, the politicians are paid by the public too...so how about insisting that Lamar Smith release all of his emails as well? The crux of this case is that we know Smith is an idiot who will do anything he can to distort climate science. And it's almost insulting to suggest that the science community is as guilty of misconduct as the anti-intellectuals populating the Republican power base. Sure, abuse can be found on both sides, but the money lies with the politicians and corporations--whom nobody should trust these days.
7
Makes sense to release the emails. Although I doubt if anything will convince Lamar Smith there is a "scientific consensus on climate change".
And who are these corporations you allude to, who have a vested interest in proving that climate change is real? Can't think of any? Me either.
Lamar Smith isn't fooling anyone. His demands are driven by ideaology and politics, pure and simple. Replacing scientific peer-review with political oversight, as Lamar has threatened, would be disastrous for the science, but good for climate change deniers.
Lamar Smith isn't fooling anyone. His demands are driven by ideaology and politics, pure and simple. Replacing scientific peer-review with political oversight, as Lamar has threatened, would be disastrous for the science, but good for climate change deniers.
11
You make a good point but the problem is that emails only convey part of the communications between scientists. I can ask a colleague "did you consider this" and he can call me on the phone with a response. A witch hunter like Lamar Smith will then claim that the inquiry was squashed. In most of the cases you bring up where the emails should be made public, they are not between scientist but emails between outside interests and the scientist. It is not an easy task to know when and if the private emails between co-workers should be made public. But like other parts of our US system, you need to demonstrate that there is reasonable cause to do so. Not that you don't like the results or want to go on a fishing expedition. So far I do not think that Representative Lamar Smith has done so.
11
If publishing one's emails is the new sign of transparency, I'm sure Paul D. Thacker won't have any problem with publishing his own emails, in their entirety, so that readers can judge whether he is being transparent and honest in his critique of scientists. Please let us know when Mr. Thacker's emails are on line for public perusal.
24
I would like to say that Retired Scientist is spot on. Bravo!!
The e-mails in the process of getting data to publication may not be "accurate" as the research winds it way through the data acquisition and analysis and in my 25 plus years in research labs, it is often the case that what would be in an e-mail may be :wrong" when all the data is analyzed. It is not distortion of truth, but rather the discovery of it that will suffer if the witch hunters pick apart e-mails.
I share in the concern of science being wrung through the wringer of private sources of funding. When the public monies are squeezed ever tighter, this is one of the saddest consequences. Researchers are more beholden to seek funds from those with agendas. I cringe at the phrase public private partner$hip.
Semi-retired scientist
The e-mails in the process of getting data to publication may not be "accurate" as the research winds it way through the data acquisition and analysis and in my 25 plus years in research labs, it is often the case that what would be in an e-mail may be :wrong" when all the data is analyzed. It is not distortion of truth, but rather the discovery of it that will suffer if the witch hunters pick apart e-mails.
I share in the concern of science being wrung through the wringer of private sources of funding. When the public monies are squeezed ever tighter, this is one of the saddest consequences. Researchers are more beholden to seek funds from those with agendas. I cringe at the phrase public private partner$hip.
Semi-retired scientist
7
The corruption in science is nothing compared to the corruption in politics. A better step than what Mr. Thacker recommends would be for every Senator, Representative, congressional staffer, lobbyist, and large campaign donor to make all of their emails available-- including the ones Mr. Thacker received before writing up this hit job.
25
So, let me get this straight. All the examples of alleged lapses in scientific integrity were by people funded by private interests. So let's go after those with public funding. Makes sense.
28
This entire campaign is bullying and intimidation at its worst by two self-righteous and self-aggrandizement members of Congress, Lamar Smith and Ted Cruz. This is exactly the kind of behavior that would get them thrown out of Congress if their constituents were not blinded by radical partisanship and relentless misinformation from their elected officials and talk radio.
14
The war on science continues. Mr Thacker should release all of his personal and professional correspondence, tax forms and school transcripts so we know he's not a paid shill. He probably got a bad grade in chemistry and is looking for payback.
15
I must say, access to my emails would be some of the most time consuming, boring and useless wastes of human effort on the planet: in other words, perfect work for Congress.
9
This is an argument for making it easier for politicians (paid by special interests) to more effectively "manage" the output of scientiests. Having worked for an institution where reports were "supervised" in order to put a better light on
managerial decisions, I am dismayed by the cynical ploy evident in Mr Thacker's op-ed.
managerial decisions, I am dismayed by the cynical ploy evident in Mr Thacker's op-ed.
18
Congress should first set the example by making their emails available to public scrutiny. Assuming our congressmen are truthful and law abiding, they should have no qualms to making all their congressional email and work available to the light of day.
32
Also all their donors.
1
Scientists are under no obligation whstsoever toshare email correspondence.
Primarily because those most of those anxious to peruse it have no comprehension to understand it.
Primarily because those most of those anxious to peruse it have no comprehension to understand it.
7
Jennifer,
Unless scientists can help us all understand 'it', then we cannot make policy using 'it'. However, there stand ready a cadre of qualified atmospheric (and other) scientists, happy to clarify any confusion.
Unless scientists can help us all understand 'it', then we cannot make policy using 'it'. However, there stand ready a cadre of qualified atmospheric (and other) scientists, happy to clarify any confusion.
1
Subpoenas for emails are generally only issued when criminal, or at least academic, misconduct is already suspected. So NOAA has been reluctant to respond to requests that, given the congressmen involved, are not good-faith attempts to investigate misconduct, but rather part of a long history of fishing expeditions designed to find fodder to discredit scientific findings, whether or not any previous evidence of misconduct exists.
The authors of this article have described their blog post as "peer-reviewed". Peer review in science refers to an specific process, whereby an editor sends out a paper to multiple reviewers, usually anonymously, for review of technical content. I am almost certain that the PLOS Biologue blog does not do this to their posts. In which case, this article is wrong to claim that that post was peer-reviewed.
I note that this article links to two outside articles focusing on scientists with links to Monsanto, but fails to link to the New York Times article that it mentions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in...
The NYT article is more detailed, is obviously known to and considered relevant by the authors, but it is even-handed in noting that organic food companies also "recruit" scientists. Are they biased against GMOs? If I can easily pick apart this editorial to find bias, when it's from journalists who intended it to be public, what chance do scientists' emails have?
The authors of this article have described their blog post as "peer-reviewed". Peer review in science refers to an specific process, whereby an editor sends out a paper to multiple reviewers, usually anonymously, for review of technical content. I am almost certain that the PLOS Biologue blog does not do this to their posts. In which case, this article is wrong to claim that that post was peer-reviewed.
I note that this article links to two outside articles focusing on scientists with links to Monsanto, but fails to link to the New York Times article that it mentions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in...
The NYT article is more detailed, is obviously known to and considered relevant by the authors, but it is even-handed in noting that organic food companies also "recruit" scientists. Are they biased against GMOs? If I can easily pick apart this editorial to find bias, when it's from journalists who intended it to be public, what chance do scientists' emails have?
18
I'm concerned the author doesn't understand science and how scientists talk about science. For example, calling a manuscript a 'deliverable' is standard practice on many grant applications, especially in Europe-- see the official term at the European Research Council: https://erc.europa.eu/glossary/term/238
Also, we scientists are no dummies-- we are generally aware our state university accounts can be FIOAed and made public.
Finally, why focus on scientists for this e-mail trawl? Why not all government employees? I for one want to see all of Paul D. Thacker's e-mails from the time he worked for the US Senate. Don't worry, it isn't malicious-- it is for transparency.
Also, we scientists are no dummies-- we are generally aware our state university accounts can be FIOAed and made public.
Finally, why focus on scientists for this e-mail trawl? Why not all government employees? I for one want to see all of Paul D. Thacker's e-mails from the time he worked for the US Senate. Don't worry, it isn't malicious-- it is for transparency.
56
And Grassley's emails. Thacker has worked for him.
1
Sure when all the political donor information including contributors to PACs is also published by personal name of contributor. Let me add all emails from pharmas about their drugs and drug pricing.
34
By Thacker's "logic" if you are publicly funded your e-mail should be open to public inspection.
Fine, let's start with Lamar Smith and the other scientific geniuses that sit on the Committee on Science Space, and Technology.
Only in 21st century America could such a group of intellectually challenged troglodytes hold the purse strings of science funding.
Fine, let's start with Lamar Smith and the other scientific geniuses that sit on the Committee on Science Space, and Technology.
Only in 21st century America could such a group of intellectually challenged troglodytes hold the purse strings of science funding.
74
Exactly! Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, is a global warming denier yet he is the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
We are about a year away from putting one of these anti-science, anti-global warming, pro coal and fossil fuel-polluting individuals in the White House. With Republicans in total control of every lever of government we can expect the mother of all gag orders on government scientists who dare to publish their peer-reviewed studies and research. Fahrenheit 451?
We are about a year away from putting one of these anti-science, anti-global warming, pro coal and fossil fuel-polluting individuals in the White House. With Republicans in total control of every lever of government we can expect the mother of all gag orders on government scientists who dare to publish their peer-reviewed studies and research. Fahrenheit 451?
1
Thank you for this incisive article. Scientists think they should be funded by government and accountable to no one but other scientists. But scientists need to realize they are not special. Scientists should be funded by and accountable to big money, just like congress and the supreme court.
14
I suspect somebody missed the sting in the tail of this excellent comment:
"funded by and accountable to big money, just like congress and the supreme court"
Thanks.
"funded by and accountable to big money, just like congress and the supreme court"
Thanks.
4
Wrong. Scientists feel inadequate facing the complexity of the universe, grateful to receive the support of the society that they serve, and frustrated that so few understand what they do. Most scientists run their labs on a shoe string, and 'big money' is what they chose to give up when they got a PhD. Please, go make friends with a scientist and find out how they really think.
1
I disagree entirely. Let the scientist perform the science; let their work be peer-reviewed by scientists of their level and appropriate expertise; and let their science stand on its own merit.
7
Cardinal Richelieu allegedly said:
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
I accordingly trust Representative Lamar Smith (or more likely his henchmen) to extract from the most inocuous email exchange between NOAA scientists incontrovertible evidence of fraud, falsehood, prevarication.
It will all the more easier since said henchmen never took a genuine high school science course and will only repeat what can be found in the denialist climate blogs.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
I accordingly trust Representative Lamar Smith (or more likely his henchmen) to extract from the most inocuous email exchange between NOAA scientists incontrovertible evidence of fraud, falsehood, prevarication.
It will all the more easier since said henchmen never took a genuine high school science course and will only repeat what can be found in the denialist climate blogs.
6
Scientists could be expected to give up their emails exactly when all
congressmen, lobbyists and all other government serving, funded and/
or accredited entities give up theirs, including their most secret ones.
For the highest public good... true transparency in the corridors of power.
Methinks we should probably not hold our mutual breath however for
this millennium event.
congressmen, lobbyists and all other government serving, funded and/
or accredited entities give up theirs, including their most secret ones.
For the highest public good... true transparency in the corridors of power.
Methinks we should probably not hold our mutual breath however for
this millennium event.
4
This article is totally slanted. Almost all fraud associated with scientific research coms from the right wing, not equally right and left. And easy to see why: there is money to be made by their corporate masters. Maybe Mr. Thacker should
first make public all his emails from the past 20 years.
first make public all his emails from the past 20 years.
6
In the interest of fairness, and by way of civic example, Paul D. Thacker should release his private emails immediately, with special attention given to any communication with representatives of carbon extraction industries.
6
Sure, scientists will give up their e-mails, if the public can also see how many non-profits-- industry groups, but also some environmental groups, are more or less waging a proxy war on behalf of industry funders.
The anti-GMO battle is almost completely led and funded by brands that depend on fear to market their products. Some are represented by shell non-profits with untraceable funding, e.g. GMO Inside. GMO labels are not about informing consumers-- organic brands want to strengthen their market share, and know that their clientele responds to anti-establishment rhetoric. Thats fine, but at least be honest about it.
The anti-GMO battle is almost completely led and funded by brands that depend on fear to market their products. Some are represented by shell non-profits with untraceable funding, e.g. GMO Inside. GMO labels are not about informing consumers-- organic brands want to strengthen their market share, and know that their clientele responds to anti-establishment rhetoric. Thats fine, but at least be honest about it.
6
wow what amazingly piece And correct. Both science and politics need to be debated vigorously with limits like Galileo in his book comparing Aristotle and Copernicus theories. Saying people will understand all detail because they have not studied for year. And we should just trust scientist to tell true about climate and topic in science. that is fallacy to Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate). Should remember in the 400 years modern science littered mistakes and fraud on numerous problems. the real scientific method does not lead to peer review. for science stand on valid footing the model tested the basic theory must be repeatable.
More than just e-mails.
Any research results already paid for with government money belongs to the taxpayers. But they are usually not privy to it; rather, they have to pay a second time in order to read the journal articles the research is in.
This is a major scam that needs to be remedied immediately.
Any research results already paid for with government money belongs to the taxpayers. But they are usually not privy to it; rather, they have to pay a second time in order to read the journal articles the research is in.
This is a major scam that needs to be remedied immediately.
In 1959 C.P. Snow submitted his provocative "The Two Cultures" for publication. It was a thoughtful piece, but as I recall, it amounted to a lament that scientists in Britain were forced to learn a lot more about Shakespeare, than humanities grads were to learn about quantum mechanics or calculus. In your rarely unbiased piece, Mr. Thacker seems to suggest that the scientific community is now pretty much at the mercy of those who move minds, not brains. Not exactly progress, is it?
2
One question relating to reciprocity: will the Republican politicians consent to sharing all their emails and phone calls with the public. I would expect much more devious and dishonest behavior from the politicians than from the scientists.
If we know such, it could be very interesting. Imagine if we know such regarding, for example, the activities of Governor Christie, or the head of the committee investigating the Libya Benghazzi incident.
If we know such, it could be very interesting. Imagine if we know such regarding, for example, the activities of Governor Christie, or the head of the committee investigating the Libya Benghazzi incident.
4
The American people have an even more justifiable right to see all of Lamarr Smith's emails.
There's much more reason to believe that he is the one involved in a conspiracy than NOAA scientists and the publishers of the most highly respected science journals such as Science and Nature. Mr. Smith has no science training, but he seems to think that he knows more on the subject of climate science than actual research scientists. Where did he get his knowledge on the subject? Who funds Mr. Smith's campaigns (gee, let me guess...)? Has he been coached? Have his donors put any pressure on him to dismiss anthropogenic climate change? We should demand to see all of his communications to find out, and and he should reveal all of his donors.
There's much more reason to believe that he is the one involved in a conspiracy than NOAA scientists and the publishers of the most highly respected science journals such as Science and Nature. Mr. Smith has no science training, but he seems to think that he knows more on the subject of climate science than actual research scientists. Where did he get his knowledge on the subject? Who funds Mr. Smith's campaigns (gee, let me guess...)? Has he been coached? Have his donors put any pressure on him to dismiss anthropogenic climate change? We should demand to see all of his communications to find out, and and he should reveal all of his donors.
7
Riiiiight-- quite a serious problem those corruptible scientists are, what with all their power to draft laws, prosecute people, and invade foreign lands.
Lets start with disclosure of something useful to, and underdstandable by normal people: all internal communications in the legistative branch should be posted online in real time.
The author is looking for corruption and scandal? Look in the mirror mr. Senate Investigator.
The corruption is not is science -- it is in government.
Lets start with disclosure of something useful to, and underdstandable by normal people: all internal communications in the legistative branch should be posted online in real time.
The author is looking for corruption and scandal? Look in the mirror mr. Senate Investigator.
The corruption is not is science -- it is in government.
4
I fail to see how failure to disclose intra-office emails has anything to do with transparency in research. Check out data gathering techniques and funding sources - no problem.
Email "scandals" are fishing expeditions plain and simple.
Email "scandals" are fishing expeditions plain and simple.
8
One important point to note - scientists are people. Like any people, sometimes they write emails containing sensitive personal information related to their peers or employees. How do you propose this release of information to the public when the details you are after - which are good details to want - are enmeshed with the personal details of people themselves?
5
Let's start by making all Congressional emails, including their staffs and families emails. Next make public emails from anyone or any organization that lobbies congress or any federal agency. Then lets talk about scientists.
10
Folks -- this is an appeal to a McCarthyite witch hunt. The scientific work is the equivalent of "1 + 1 = 2" ... it doesn't matter whether there are emails back and forth among the scientists saying "Lamar Smith is a poopyhead;" either "1 + 1 = 2" or it doesn't -- check the work. Everything any scientist needs to check the work is freely available.
And science doesn't generally work by auditing how a result was arrived at (step by step) anyway, rather it is checked by "independent replication:" other scientists go at the problem from scratch independently, including independent data if possible.
It's not clear what Lamar is after -- I suspect he's like McCarthy, wild accusations made to do more "investigation," to find something to make wilder accusations.
But it has nothing to do with whether the science is right or wrong.
And science doesn't generally work by auditing how a result was arrived at (step by step) anyway, rather it is checked by "independent replication:" other scientists go at the problem from scratch independently, including independent data if possible.
It's not clear what Lamar is after -- I suspect he's like McCarthy, wild accusations made to do more "investigation," to find something to make wilder accusations.
But it has nothing to do with whether the science is right or wrong.
9
Sorry, I do not trust the likes of Cruz or Smith to work in the public's best interest with their interpretations of scientific communication and data. As big a Princeton & Harvard Law-educated blowhard Cruz is, he should understand that just like we have courts to interpret our laws, scientists should interpret science--the latter of which is far more complicated.
9
Academic scientists publish papers or get laid off, they present results that must be reproducible (except mouse cancer pharmacology, it seems). If there are doubts about the result section, voice them, discuss them, prove them wrong, indict the PI, THEN get their emails. In the quest for transparency for public money, let's start to have every PhD thesis online at least 3 years after graduation. There's a lot wrong with academic research in this country, but this ain't it.
5
In today's world where even proven science is challenged with no more than opinion and emotion, certain degree of secrecy is necessary for developing science if any research is to proceed.
3
Having scientist's face an obligatory email release is comparable to having journalists release there emails for every story they publish. Dumb! Candor and argumentation between colleagues would suffer an irreparable loss of honesty if they are having to continually weigh their potential release into the public domain. This would hugely affect the quality and efficacy of the science conducted and would paralyze collegial interaction and debate. Get real!
10
Thacker wraps his demands for the release of the emails of publicly funded science researchers in the cloak of the public's right to know, and for transparency's sake. Who could be against that? The implication being that those who are, are conspiring to hide ... something. Once Thacker get's his hands on those emails he so piously covets, he proceeds to do nothing to "bring the public the truth". He, instead specializes in character assassination of the scientists whose research his benefactors pay him to denigrate through false equivalence, innuendo, and the fashioning of a narrative through the artful use of out-of-context quotes from emails that are not, and never were intended to be, part of the tested results of the scientific method.
13
I'd be concerned with the fact that, as a university academic, my email contains all sorts of correspondence with my advisees and students in my classes. Who gets to filter stuff that should be confidential from stuff that should be public?Would I have to complicate my life by maintaining separate emails?
6
There might be a live argument if Representative Smith was acting in good faith, but his motivation appears to be to frustrate the work of scientists whose findings trouble his donors. That distinction matters because it is not simply that his requests are harassing (which by the way would be actually quite sad by itself), it's that this harassment is an abuse of the legal system.
11
It is disturbing that scientists doing research at major universities could be secretly working for corporate sponsors in the form of doing biased peer reviews of studies, writing articles and testifying before congress. It is unethical to present oneself as an objective scientist, but receiving compensation by a stakeholder to influence conclusions and opinions. Universities should make it clear that this is not allowed and any scientist caught skewing results to favor their sponsors should be terminated.
Many physicists post their papers on the website arXiv.org before submitting them to any journal. All physicists should do that.
Ideally, federal funding should support arXiv.org and allow it to expand so as to cover all the sciences. Then all scientists should post all their papers there before submitting them to any journal.
Current practice allows Elsevier, Wiley, Pearson, and others to charge huge fees for their journals to which these corporations contribute very little because unpaid scientists do the writing and the refereeing. Yet these corporations have locked up much of science and made it unavailable electronically except to the wealthiest institutions.
Ideally, federal funding should support arXiv.org and allow it to expand so as to cover all the sciences. Then all scientists should post all their papers there before submitting them to any journal.
Current practice allows Elsevier, Wiley, Pearson, and others to charge huge fees for their journals to which these corporations contribute very little because unpaid scientists do the writing and the refereeing. Yet these corporations have locked up much of science and made it unavailable electronically except to the wealthiest institutions.
2
The writers make a well reasoned argument for the disclosure of the scientists' communication during the preparation of the report on climate change. However, they also should have questioned the motivations behind Senator Smith's demands for the communications. Is Smith interested in understanding the processes and data that lead to the report's conclusions or is he interested, for ideological reasons, in combing through the emails in search of statements that he can take out of context and turn into soundbites in order to bring the report's conclusions into questions? Given his record. This is not an unreasonable concern.
The author makes it sound so simple, like it's a tedious matter. However, it really is a slippery slope that could (and would) lead to lawsuits and parsing every turn of phrase. In a business dispute, my former partner subpoenaed my university emails -- all 3500 of them. It became a distraction in questioning of emails where I vented to my mother about my doubts, emails where I posed possible alternatives to a trusted friend.
We all put things in emails that should never be part of any public record. Emails among scientists, where they may pose alternative questions, play devil's advocate, or even just vent after a bad day, should NOT be fair play for a group as juvenile as Congress has been recently.
We all put things in emails that should never be part of any public record. Emails among scientists, where they may pose alternative questions, play devil's advocate, or even just vent after a bad day, should NOT be fair play for a group as juvenile as Congress has been recently.
5
The public need not be alarmed because it can't read scientists' email messages. Scientific research is "transparent" when it provides the information needed to reproduce its results. This is about data and technique (including computer code), not what a researcher batted out in an email message.
3
I completely agree with the need for true research transparency at public universities. Your examples are focused on abuses emanating from researchers doing the bidding of corporations. In my own work at a public university, researchers working in concert with environmental causes they personally support have been the worst abusers. Data are routinely cherry-picked (ahem....make that 'outliers are discarded'...) to create the most compelling stories. Research staff who object will find themselves left out of the next project, and thus unemployed. The result is a program where everyone is 'on board' or reluctantly silenced. I would love to see a mechanism where this could be safely addressed by both research staff and journalists.
1
The fact that the government funded the research is of no importance unless the government contracted for access to the emails. As a grand funded university researcher I never would have agreed to such a contract, but in the absence of any agreement the government simply has no righ to the communication.
3
Hmm. You suggest that the communications of public servants be made public, since the public is paying for the work. I'd agree completely if you expanded the definition of work the public is paying for.
Please start with federal elected representatives. And since most of them are wily lawyers who are careful to avoid putting controversial matters in writing, I think they should make their conversations and calls public as well as their emails. Under those circumstances I suspect that all scientists would be happy to open-source their emails, as the press and judiciary would be fully occupied reviewing the correspondence of our elected officials.
Please start with federal elected representatives. And since most of them are wily lawyers who are careful to avoid putting controversial matters in writing, I think they should make their conversations and calls public as well as their emails. Under those circumstances I suspect that all scientists would be happy to open-source their emails, as the press and judiciary would be fully occupied reviewing the correspondence of our elected officials.
6
Well, if the right wingers want to see the scientists e-mail then the lawyers suing the government or submitting FOIA requests want to see the e-mails held back by agencies under the so-called deliberative process privilege. Why should government officials' deliberations be private, especially when they often involve scientific issues? Such full disclosure rules will hurt those who are trying to avoid well-established science as many government officials did under Bush and as some continue to do even under Obama.
3
Government scientists are already being required to store their data in such a way that it is open and accessible:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/initiatives#Openness
As other posters have already pointed out, providing access to emails does not elucidate any issue. Rather it will obfuscate and confuse when taken out of context, as has already happened with "ClimateGate", especially when misconstrued by others, e.g. lay politicians. Emails are not citeable, peer-reviewed journal article are, and for good reason. Senators Smith and Cruz should not try to circumvent the approach of modern science, nor be motivated by politics to second-guess experts in fields in which they themselves have no appropriate background. Doing so is a disservice to science in general, and the American people (and US government scientists) in particular.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/initiatives#Openness
As other posters have already pointed out, providing access to emails does not elucidate any issue. Rather it will obfuscate and confuse when taken out of context, as has already happened with "ClimateGate", especially when misconstrued by others, e.g. lay politicians. Emails are not citeable, peer-reviewed journal article are, and for good reason. Senators Smith and Cruz should not try to circumvent the approach of modern science, nor be motivated by politics to second-guess experts in fields in which they themselves have no appropriate background. Doing so is a disservice to science in general, and the American people (and US government scientists) in particular.
5
I am not a climate scientist but a STEM professor. I once tried to have my students analyze temperature data To my surprise I could not find a single data file on the world-wide web (including NOAA's website) that had simple atmospheric or ocean temperature data. Every data file I looked at had the data in terms of 'temperature anomaly', ie the delta from some average that I could not figure out. That did not look right to me. I am a liberal and not a climate change denier, but to me climate science appears more complicated than good science
1
"Last August, a colleague and I wrote an article on the importance of transparency in science for one of the blogs of the science journal publisher PLOS. The argument was fairly simple: When research is paid for by the public, the public has a right to demand transparency and to have access to documents related to the research. This might strike most people as reasonable."
Ummmm, no. That's not how it works nor should it be otherwise we would not have ITAR and EAR:
"ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and the EAR (Export Administration Regulations) are export control regulations run by different departments of the US Government. Both of them are designed to help ensure that defense related technology does not get into the wrong hands."
In practice, there is not much difference between science and engineering and the results of those efforts often have major national security impact. Opening up such science or engineering - taxpayer funded or not - gives that information to our enemies as well (and their taxpayers didn't pay for it).
Ummmm, no. That's not how it works nor should it be otherwise we would not have ITAR and EAR:
"ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and the EAR (Export Administration Regulations) are export control regulations run by different departments of the US Government. Both of them are designed to help ensure that defense related technology does not get into the wrong hands."
In practice, there is not much difference between science and engineering and the results of those efforts often have major national security impact. Opening up such science or engineering - taxpayer funded or not - gives that information to our enemies as well (and their taxpayers didn't pay for it).
1
As a scientist, this sounds like an interesting idea, but we already have judicial subpoenas for such cases of suspected misconduct. Some questions:
1. Will universal email disclosure also be applied to public servants like Mr. Paul D. Thacker himself, and to Representative Lamar Smith? They have conflicts of interest, too, perhaps more so than scientists.
2. What is 'email'? I have a university email, and a couple of personal gmail accounts. Do I lose all privacy rights to my personal accounts? Or does this impose new quarantine rules on different types of accounts?
3. Will discussions in hallways also be recorded? Emails are merely discussions. Will discussions be quarantined by type (see point 2)?
4. Emails will involve a mixture of scientific discussions, revelations of scientific honesty and its opposite, and personal and political arguments? How do you filter out that Dr. X things that Dr. Y is a moron? Or is this now a public matter? And, going back to (1), is Lamar's Smith disdain for rich donor Z also a public matter now? (Bring it on!)
1. Will universal email disclosure also be applied to public servants like Mr. Paul D. Thacker himself, and to Representative Lamar Smith? They have conflicts of interest, too, perhaps more so than scientists.
2. What is 'email'? I have a university email, and a couple of personal gmail accounts. Do I lose all privacy rights to my personal accounts? Or does this impose new quarantine rules on different types of accounts?
3. Will discussions in hallways also be recorded? Emails are merely discussions. Will discussions be quarantined by type (see point 2)?
4. Emails will involve a mixture of scientific discussions, revelations of scientific honesty and its opposite, and personal and political arguments? How do you filter out that Dr. X things that Dr. Y is a moron? Or is this now a public matter? And, going back to (1), is Lamar's Smith disdain for rich donor Z also a public matter now? (Bring it on!)
7
The public can already see the research they are funding - it's published in journals and made open-access after some period of time (1 year for NIH funded research). If the public wants the raw data or the processing techiques, it's either in the papers, a centralized repository, or can be requested directly from the authors. Or kindly reach out to researchers - we love to talk to people about our work.
Asking for e-mails with no proof of misconduct is a fishing expedition which is looks for a smoking gun e-mail to take out of context. If we want people to work in publicly funded science, they have to be free to do research without FOIA/subpoena harassment from people that simply cannot accept reality. The science will stand or fall on its own merits. This idea is in line with the tacit agreement the public has made with the scientific community: the public funds science (in a general sense) that it believes has value & leaves it to experts (eg: the NIH, NSF...) as to how to allocate money based on a merit/value system. The public doesn't need to decide what the science tells us, they need to decide how public policy should be shaped in light of scientific results. However, there is probably room to strength COI disclosure rules.
Anyway, I'm sure Thacker knows all about bending the truth and hatchet jobs after his PLOS's Biologue blog was retracted last summer: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/24/following-criticism-plos-removes-b...
Asking for e-mails with no proof of misconduct is a fishing expedition which is looks for a smoking gun e-mail to take out of context. If we want people to work in publicly funded science, they have to be free to do research without FOIA/subpoena harassment from people that simply cannot accept reality. The science will stand or fall on its own merits. This idea is in line with the tacit agreement the public has made with the scientific community: the public funds science (in a general sense) that it believes has value & leaves it to experts (eg: the NIH, NSF...) as to how to allocate money based on a merit/value system. The public doesn't need to decide what the science tells us, they need to decide how public policy should be shaped in light of scientific results. However, there is probably room to strength COI disclosure rules.
Anyway, I'm sure Thacker knows all about bending the truth and hatchet jobs after his PLOS's Biologue blog was retracted last summer: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/24/following-criticism-plos-removes-b...
10
If, asPaul Thacker believes, the e-mails of government supported scientists should be public property, it only stands to reason that their research should be public property also, and that the fruits of that research should go to the public, not to private corporations to profit off of.
If the public has a right to read government supported scientists' e-mails, how much greater the public interest in having all Congressional e-mails available to the public.
If the public has a right to read government supported scientists' e-mails, how much greater the public interest in having all Congressional e-mails available to the public.
6
If they want private emails made public, perhaps the Congressional investigators could set an example and make public all of their private emails relating to the investigation. They should be happy to do that, right? Those emails are paid for by the government even more directly than those of the research scientists.
6
Trying to suggest that all scientists are 'pure at heart' is a bridge too far. They, the scientists, in whatever sector are usually driven to achieve, to perform - to produce results. Most want to be first in the field; to have their name in lights. To be the 'keynote speaker'. To be recognised by others in their sector. Their performance & success rate usually means that more funding comes their way. They know how to polish their applications. They 'perform' brilliantly at any interview. And many know how to cut corners without being discovered. The modern era of media exposure as opposed to waiting for papers to be reviewed then published - in print has helped create a personality type that abhors failure, which includes coming second, not first. 'Proceed with caution' is not on their agendas.
1
It has been my general experience that those who list their credentials aftr their name in common conversation are not to be heeded.
1
Trust me - those people get flushed out early in their careers. Science is cruel and nature is unforgiving. You are either right or you are wrong. Successful scientists play the long game.
1
Rubbish. First of all we are talking about endless amounts of email open to endless interpretation. You want to see $millions more wasted on the equivalent of Benghazi hearings, follow the advice in this article.
Second of all, scientists are indeed trustworthy by nature, the implication that they are not is GOP science denying malarkey.
Last of all this would hurt communications between scientists and therefore scientific progress, because scientists know that politicians, particularly republicans, practice character assassination as a habit and would twist emails just like was done to Mrs Clinton.
What you see here is a play to oversimplify and then rebrand the very complex profession "Scientists" into another GOP "Other." This has already been done for the mysterious group "Elites." All of a sudden every rube in America seems to agree upon some entity called "elites" when in fact the meme is a GOP distraction, a bogeyman. Don't let them start up with doing the same for "Scientists."
Second of all, scientists are indeed trustworthy by nature, the implication that they are not is GOP science denying malarkey.
Last of all this would hurt communications between scientists and therefore scientific progress, because scientists know that politicians, particularly republicans, practice character assassination as a habit and would twist emails just like was done to Mrs Clinton.
What you see here is a play to oversimplify and then rebrand the very complex profession "Scientists" into another GOP "Other." This has already been done for the mysterious group "Elites." All of a sudden every rube in America seems to agree upon some entity called "elites" when in fact the meme is a GOP distraction, a bogeyman. Don't let them start up with doing the same for "Scientists."
13
This is both morally wrong and destructive to research productivity.
It is absolutely morally wrong to say that acceptance of government money should mean loss of all expectation of privacy.
Privacy is also needed for any creative process. A scientist will not brainstorm with a colleague if their speculations can be later used against them.
It is absolutely morally wrong to say that acceptance of government money should mean loss of all expectation of privacy.
Privacy is also needed for any creative process. A scientist will not brainstorm with a colleague if their speculations can be later used against them.
11
Rather than emails, data access is and should be more available. Many publications are now requiring scientists to make the raw data that they used in their studies available for reexamination. This allows for informed people to critically examine the science performed. This creates more transparency without the invasion of privacy unduly advocated by Thacker that he claims scientists deserve above politicians, businessmen and bankers.
5
There's the old saying about not wanting to see how sausage is made... there's something to be said of that when it comes to unfiltered emails as well. When you have everyone from professors to lab techs to post docs to first year grad students involved in studies, the emails can be a bit crazy, disorganized, and misleading.
If Universities and research organizations are going to turn over all emails related to research, they need to set up systems that will automatically log all contact with certain individuals or companies, and flag that communication as being "public" when it is being written. You're sending an email to BigPharmaInc - as soon as you type in that email address a system needs to remind the researcher that everything they are typing is being recorded for public consumption.
Of course, people will find ways around any system. If you tell them that all university email will be monitored and made available they will simply switch to using anonymous email accounts.
If Universities and research organizations are going to turn over all emails related to research, they need to set up systems that will automatically log all contact with certain individuals or companies, and flag that communication as being "public" when it is being written. You're sending an email to BigPharmaInc - as soon as you type in that email address a system needs to remind the researcher that everything they are typing is being recorded for public consumption.
Of course, people will find ways around any system. If you tell them that all university email will be monitored and made available they will simply switch to using anonymous email accounts.
5
I appreciate Mr. Thacker's intent, but trying to uncover malpractice by demanding access to scientists' email archives is a *terrible* idea, for two reasons.
First, it is common to use email to float preliminary ideas, most of which turn out, later on, to be ridiculously wrong. An average email exchange about any given issue is going to look like this: http://abstrusegoose.com/230 (it's a comic, but the reason it is funny to scientists is because it is painfully true).
Second, it is easy to defeat. It takes all of two minutes to create a private account with a commercial provider and use that channel to communicate with my colleagues under the table. Add in some fairly standard encryption and anonymization, and you can say anything you want without anybody being any wiser.
If one is really concerned about malpractice, there are at least two way better measures one can implement: first, demand full access to research groups' GitHub (or equivalent) repositories, which is where actual (intermediate and final) results are to be found; second, demand journals to allow post-publication comments on papers (as PLoS and Frontiers already do), so peer review is not limited to the 3-to-5 individuals that see the paper prior to publication.
First, it is common to use email to float preliminary ideas, most of which turn out, later on, to be ridiculously wrong. An average email exchange about any given issue is going to look like this: http://abstrusegoose.com/230 (it's a comic, but the reason it is funny to scientists is because it is painfully true).
Second, it is easy to defeat. It takes all of two minutes to create a private account with a commercial provider and use that channel to communicate with my colleagues under the table. Add in some fairly standard encryption and anonymization, and you can say anything you want without anybody being any wiser.
If one is really concerned about malpractice, there are at least two way better measures one can implement: first, demand full access to research groups' GitHub (or equivalent) repositories, which is where actual (intermediate and final) results are to be found; second, demand journals to allow post-publication comments on papers (as PLoS and Frontiers already do), so peer review is not limited to the 3-to-5 individuals that see the paper prior to publication.
16
Yeah, it'd be great to open scientific debate to the menacing yahoos who stick on their tinfoil hat, open their comic version of the Bible to page 7, and start ranting about how Carbon-14 dating is a lie from the pit of hell.
1
Most academic researchers also teach, and universities give them one email account for both activities. Make the email of all faculty receiving public research funding public information, and student confidentiality just went out the window.
6
What a perfect example of how anti-science activists on the right (aka climate change deniers) and the left (aka anti-GMO activists) can unite in the harassment of scientists. There is a distinction between the sort of process advocated by Mr. Thacker here, and the sort of important transparency work performed by members of groups such as Retraction Watch. Anyone who has witnessed how patently innocuous statements can be weaponized in the poltiical arena should be concerned about the sorts of policies advocated by Thacker. They are likely to chill free speech by scientists, encourage the use of non-governmental email accounts, and politicize the scientific process even more than it actually is.
9
There are already methods for investigating the veracity of a paper's results, namely by trying to reproduce them. Even if results are determined to be erroneous, they may well have originated from honest mistakes rather than malfeasance. An investigation of the scientists themselves is warranted only if there is reason to doubt their character and there is evidence that scientific misconduct occurred.
Launching an investigation into scientists' correspondence without having beforehand evaluated the research on its own merit is indeed a politically motivated witch-hunt, and one that ought to be resisted.
Launching an investigation into scientists' correspondence without having beforehand evaluated the research on its own merit is indeed a politically motivated witch-hunt, and one that ought to be resisted.
12
The public is alarmed, at least the ones who are awake and paying attention.
If the government chooses to demand email openness of scientists, then I, as a citizen, would choose to demand access to all non-classified emails sent by elected and appointed officials of the government - and not through the FOIA laws.
The problem with demanding access to email means that the emailers will simply find other means to communicate, be they scientists or government officials.
There are a lot of areas in our country that could use a blast of sunlight. Everyone should pay close attention to privacy, as well; the government and many corporations are intent on vacuuming up every shred of information about the public as they can, often in spite of the laws we have on the books that are intended to limit what data about citizens and residents can be collected.
If the government chooses to demand email openness of scientists, then I, as a citizen, would choose to demand access to all non-classified emails sent by elected and appointed officials of the government - and not through the FOIA laws.
The problem with demanding access to email means that the emailers will simply find other means to communicate, be they scientists or government officials.
There are a lot of areas in our country that could use a blast of sunlight. Everyone should pay close attention to privacy, as well; the government and many corporations are intent on vacuuming up every shred of information about the public as they can, often in spite of the laws we have on the books that are intended to limit what data about citizens and residents can be collected.
3
Scientists should definitely be considered guilty until proven innocent. We need to scour their emails to be sure they are on the straight and narrow.
I was skeptical of this method at first. I thought it was thuggish and distracted scientists from the research and teaching they should be doing. But then through the NYT story and the FOIA I saw how much money professors were getting from the organic food industry. In one case, they were give $120,000 to promote the research that was favorable to the organic industry. That's not for research, that was just for media outreach! To push the story to the press and get wide coverage. I really had no idea that was done and the press was influenced that way.
So now I understand that it is a citizen's duty to dig through these emails. The organic industry is influencing science and the media, and we need to know.
I was skeptical of this method at first. I thought it was thuggish and distracted scientists from the research and teaching they should be doing. But then through the NYT story and the FOIA I saw how much money professors were getting from the organic food industry. In one case, they were give $120,000 to promote the research that was favorable to the organic industry. That's not for research, that was just for media outreach! To push the story to the press and get wide coverage. I really had no idea that was done and the press was influenced that way.
So now I understand that it is a citizen's duty to dig through these emails. The organic industry is influencing science and the media, and we need to know.
1
The author equates access to emails with "access to scientific research that the public is paying for". Emails are not research. Research encompasses the data generated with public support and the final reports (including papers) describing those data. The data and reports should be available for all to see and interpret. Whatever arguments one may wish to make for access to scientists emails, "access to scientific research" should not be one of them. Emails are not research.
14
What we have here is a failure to communicate. The author of this piece does not understand the iterative scientific process, the integrity of scientists, the need for a zone of privacy where ideas can be tested before they are submitted to peers or the public, the impossibility of capturing a complex idea in an email, the false assumption that you can recreate scientific intent or a chain of reasoning from an email thread, and lastly, the overwhelming desire of most scientists to stay out of politics. We are all students of the history of science, we all know what happened to Robert Oppenheimer. This author can no longer see straight; he lives in a crooked world and so he assumes that everyone else is crooked and manipulable. Somehow he thinks that Emails are a source of truth. Emails will not save him.
9
As someone who works on federal funded NIH projects at a top tier research University, I find this article truly disturbing.
It's one thing to ask for public access to all raw data, but all personal work emails? I would expect this anti-science fear mongering from Fox news, but the increasing paranoia by even liberal news sources is disgusting.
The harsh reality is the vast majority of people in 2016 are not qualified to interpret most advanced research. And even if they were, there's no justified need to expose all emails by workers in research.
At a time when federal funding for science is lower than ever: sure let's remove more rights of our underpaid researchers so that under-qualified, ideology-driven politicians can take jabs at our work and personal communications, great idea.
It's one thing to ask for public access to all raw data, but all personal work emails? I would expect this anti-science fear mongering from Fox news, but the increasing paranoia by even liberal news sources is disgusting.
The harsh reality is the vast majority of people in 2016 are not qualified to interpret most advanced research. And even if they were, there's no justified need to expose all emails by workers in research.
At a time when federal funding for science is lower than ever: sure let's remove more rights of our underpaid researchers so that under-qualified, ideology-driven politicians can take jabs at our work and personal communications, great idea.
14
This chaotic article mixes and makes a hopeless hash of very different kinds of communication.
In the NOAA case, and in the case of all public servants who are providing "pre-decision" advice, that is no different than any of the evolving and necessarily off-the record staff recommendations. This is not the same at all as a scientific paper, paid for by the government. Imagine if a US Senator or a President wanted frank unvarnished thoughts, but those staffers knew that their evolving conversations would be made public and subject to attack by opportunistic Congressional Committees or OpEd pieces that play fast and loose with the facts, no US Senator or President could be confident that staffer is providing a fully honest assessment. This kind of pre-decisional recommendation has always been considered off the record for the good of our Nation
Second, who exactly is this author? You say he worked for a Senate committee, but you don't say for which party or for which Congressional Committee. We do not know if this is just another attack dog, apparently obfusticating the facts to submarine careers for political benefit, or an actual working staffer. From his mixing apples with oranges and with SUVs, it appears he is playing gotcha politics just to confuse important issues and principles.
In the NOAA case, and in the case of all public servants who are providing "pre-decision" advice, that is no different than any of the evolving and necessarily off-the record staff recommendations. This is not the same at all as a scientific paper, paid for by the government. Imagine if a US Senator or a President wanted frank unvarnished thoughts, but those staffers knew that their evolving conversations would be made public and subject to attack by opportunistic Congressional Committees or OpEd pieces that play fast and loose with the facts, no US Senator or President could be confident that staffer is providing a fully honest assessment. This kind of pre-decisional recommendation has always been considered off the record for the good of our Nation
Second, who exactly is this author? You say he worked for a Senate committee, but you don't say for which party or for which Congressional Committee. We do not know if this is just another attack dog, apparently obfusticating the facts to submarine careers for political benefit, or an actual working staffer. From his mixing apples with oranges and with SUVs, it appears he is playing gotcha politics just to confuse important issues and principles.
9
Science should definitely be open and transparent by publishing their results.
these atmospheric scientists are right to resist the current email witch hunt/fishing expedition/intimidation tactics. The congressional committees have given no legitimate reason for wanting to see these emails; the stated reason that there was something fishy about the timing of their Science paper is ridiculous on its face. Any working scientist knows that we have little control on when things are published, and getting an article into Science is fraught with delays (as well as, more often than not, rejection). The congressional committee appears to have no legitimate concern here and seem to want to intimidate important scientific research that doesn't fit their political agenda.
these atmospheric scientists are right to resist the current email witch hunt/fishing expedition/intimidation tactics. The congressional committees have given no legitimate reason for wanting to see these emails; the stated reason that there was something fishy about the timing of their Science paper is ridiculous on its face. Any working scientist knows that we have little control on when things are published, and getting an article into Science is fraught with delays (as well as, more often than not, rejection). The congressional committee appears to have no legitimate concern here and seem to want to intimidate important scientific research that doesn't fit their political agenda.
8
The difference between using scientists' emails and notions of transparency to uncover corporate malfeasance and corruption, and using them to uncover Lamar Smith's fantasies of ideologically-influenced science, is on par with Trey Gowdy's infamous fishing expedition of State Dept emails on Benghazi by the House Select Committee, to cast a wide net to make political hay with whatever happenstance bits might turn out to be useful later. We've seen this movie before.
There IS no dispute about the 'scientific consensus' on climate change.
Mr. Smith (and the author, Paul Thacker) are abusing the public 'need-to-know' about the contents of scientists' emails for ammunition against the public interest in science, disguised as an unwarranted investigation of the integrity of the vast majority of scientists toiling in public service, at below-market wages, easy prey for the very corporate donors that bankroll Mr. Smith's campaigns and count on his institutional malfeasance to further bully science-based public institutions, like the FDA, NOAA, and NIH. Rather than an interest in real corruption of the public interest at public expense, the only thing 'transparent' is Mr. Smith's interest in the appearance of something he can call 'corruption' in order to get these agencies to toe an ideologically-acceptable line that has nothing to do with science and public safety, and everything to do with his donor's corporate bottom line.
There IS no dispute about the 'scientific consensus' on climate change.
Mr. Smith (and the author, Paul Thacker) are abusing the public 'need-to-know' about the contents of scientists' emails for ammunition against the public interest in science, disguised as an unwarranted investigation of the integrity of the vast majority of scientists toiling in public service, at below-market wages, easy prey for the very corporate donors that bankroll Mr. Smith's campaigns and count on his institutional malfeasance to further bully science-based public institutions, like the FDA, NOAA, and NIH. Rather than an interest in real corruption of the public interest at public expense, the only thing 'transparent' is Mr. Smith's interest in the appearance of something he can call 'corruption' in order to get these agencies to toe an ideologically-acceptable line that has nothing to do with science and public safety, and everything to do with his donor's corporate bottom line.
7
As a research scientist, it is ludicrous to imagine that my emails are part of a permanent, legally binding record. They include crazy ideas (that will end up being totally wrong), personal concerns (say, about interactions with senior colleagues or my personal life), and frank discussion of whatever it is I'm working on. These ideas need to be able to be discussed, questioned, refined, and fixed before they become useful to anyone, much less fair game for science deniers to attack scientists, the vast majority of whom are just trying to get the right answer to a really hard set of problems. My lab notebook is legally binding; my final (checked, calibrated, meaningful) data are open access; my email is necessary conversation and unquestionably private.
14
1) In this media environment it's dangerously easy for information to be presented without sufficient context
2) There should then also be transparency in all communications of any organization (private or public) that receives public funding either directly or indirectly.
3) Congress should allow scientists to do work without fear, thinking primarily of those at the CDC especially as it relates to guns and public health.
2) There should then also be transparency in all communications of any organization (private or public) that receives public funding either directly or indirectly.
3) Congress should allow scientists to do work without fear, thinking primarily of those at the CDC especially as it relates to guns and public health.
5
No, no, no a thousand times no. I'm an NSF funded scientist and I believe that the public had a right to my results and any work I produce on their behalf. What the public does not have a right to are my communications with colleagues and collaborators. In order for to do my work I need to be able to know that what I say to my colleagues will remain private. Why? Is it because I'm hiding something? No. It's because sometimes we discuss ideas for other grants that everyone in the community competes for. Having that idea made public means other grant seekers can and will use those ideas on their own grant applications. Also, many scientific communities are relatively small. Having confidential communication made public means that every of hand comment I make, every flippant remark, every moment of frustration with other people, people I will need to work with in the future, is now available for all to read. The result will be fractured communities, alienation, and reduced productivity and scientific progress.
8
If anti-climate change congressmen want access to private emails they should explain in detail their motives for the requests. Most of us who have followed their vendettas against scientific studies have seen how far they went to discredit the East Anglia Climate Research Unit by distorting stolen emails they claim contradict the studies and results.
NOAA's Inspector General responded to Senator James Inhofe's false accusations and totally debunked the right wing CRU conspiracy. Of course, it still lives on just as their Benghazi nonsense will live on through the 2016 election.
Anti-science troglodytes like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and Texas Congressman Lamar Smith have but one agenda and that is to undermine years of peer reviewed studies and research in their ongoing assault on the empirical evidence that supports global warming and the devastating consequences of climate change.
The U.S. Justice Department should investigate these Republican propagandists and saboteurs who are ripping our country apart with their relentless attacks on the scientific community which they loathe as much as they do our U.S. Constitution which they are constantly trying to amend to suit their rotted anti-science ideology.
No, scientists should not give up their emails or buckle under to the demagoguery of Republican autocrats.
NOAA's Inspector General responded to Senator James Inhofe's false accusations and totally debunked the right wing CRU conspiracy. Of course, it still lives on just as their Benghazi nonsense will live on through the 2016 election.
Anti-science troglodytes like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and Texas Congressman Lamar Smith have but one agenda and that is to undermine years of peer reviewed studies and research in their ongoing assault on the empirical evidence that supports global warming and the devastating consequences of climate change.
The U.S. Justice Department should investigate these Republican propagandists and saboteurs who are ripping our country apart with their relentless attacks on the scientific community which they loathe as much as they do our U.S. Constitution which they are constantly trying to amend to suit their rotted anti-science ideology.
No, scientists should not give up their emails or buckle under to the demagoguery of Republican autocrats.
28
Full disclosure: I'm a scientist.
One reason -- IMO the main reason -- that scientists might be less than enthusiastic about transparency is what can happen to good science when it goes public: Distortion by special-interest groups for whatever purpose suits them. Add a poorly educated public with a big appetite for arguments but little inclination for critical thinking, and a shock-oriented media driven by ratings....Nothing could be more different from widely held scientific standards of honesty and integrity.
Good science is hard work; to a scientist it's also attractive. And yet it's no work at all (and it's ugly indeed) for special interests -- a political candidate; media with a political agenda? -- to misrepresent or outright lie about good science for personal gain. And then? The non-scientific public, lead astray by "leadership's" intellectual and moral irresponsibility/dishonesty, respond by making it harder for that science to continue (they do fund most of it, after all).
Of course none of this excuses lying by scientists, which does happen although it's not common. But the public won't get full transparency in science until it stops excusing lying about science by self-interested, non-scientist opportunists (which IS common). That's "lying" in the broad sense, including distortion, misrepresentation, etc. In this, the public have a long way to go.
One reason -- IMO the main reason -- that scientists might be less than enthusiastic about transparency is what can happen to good science when it goes public: Distortion by special-interest groups for whatever purpose suits them. Add a poorly educated public with a big appetite for arguments but little inclination for critical thinking, and a shock-oriented media driven by ratings....Nothing could be more different from widely held scientific standards of honesty and integrity.
Good science is hard work; to a scientist it's also attractive. And yet it's no work at all (and it's ugly indeed) for special interests -- a political candidate; media with a political agenda? -- to misrepresent or outright lie about good science for personal gain. And then? The non-scientific public, lead astray by "leadership's" intellectual and moral irresponsibility/dishonesty, respond by making it harder for that science to continue (they do fund most of it, after all).
Of course none of this excuses lying by scientists, which does happen although it's not common. But the public won't get full transparency in science until it stops excusing lying about science by self-interested, non-scientist opportunists (which IS common). That's "lying" in the broad sense, including distortion, misrepresentation, etc. In this, the public have a long way to go.
17
Mr. Thacker, you talk about the risk of dangerous precedent, yet for some reason you don't make this article one about the dangerous precedent set by Rep. Lamar Smith (R. Fossil Industry).
The committee he chairs decided to allow the majority leader of the committee unprecedented rights to subpoena, without even involving the minority.
Read the link for the second letter from the committee's minority - Rep. Eddie Berenice Johnson, to Lamar Smith, about his fossil-fueled fishing expedition.
Two key points she raises: no allegation of wrongdoing when he launched his attack; his eventual claim that people said the paper was "rushed" to press were claims only after the fact - the paper was submitted for peer-review months before publication, and went through several rounds.
http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/fil...
So please note - unilateral subpoena power can be used as a threat and a weapong - especially when the party that has granted itself such powers has also worked to reduce funding for the Earth Science research that their campaign donors find so threatening.
Smith had been provided the data used in the study (data sets also peer-reviewed, by the way). He'd been provided a detailed explanation by the authors. But he decided to fight on anyway, without alleging any wrongdoing while issuing his subpoenas.
The committee he chairs decided to allow the majority leader of the committee unprecedented rights to subpoena, without even involving the minority.
Read the link for the second letter from the committee's minority - Rep. Eddie Berenice Johnson, to Lamar Smith, about his fossil-fueled fishing expedition.
Two key points she raises: no allegation of wrongdoing when he launched his attack; his eventual claim that people said the paper was "rushed" to press were claims only after the fact - the paper was submitted for peer-review months before publication, and went through several rounds.
http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/fil...
So please note - unilateral subpoena power can be used as a threat and a weapong - especially when the party that has granted itself such powers has also worked to reduce funding for the Earth Science research that their campaign donors find so threatening.
Smith had been provided the data used in the study (data sets also peer-reviewed, by the way). He'd been provided a detailed explanation by the authors. But he decided to fight on anyway, without alleging any wrongdoing while issuing his subpoenas.
7
fagan,
There are a raft of serious questions regarding this NOAA project and its data, NOAA will not answer these rationally and so they have forced an investigation, you can read about some of these concerns here:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-wa...
The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with other all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.
They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world’s best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.
Adjustments are largely to sea surface temperatures (SST) and appear to align ship measurements of SST with night marine air temperature (NMAT) estimates, which have their own data bias problems.
The extend of the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) is not justified by any evidence as to the magnitude of the appropriate adjustment, which appears to be far smaller.
There are a raft of serious questions regarding this NOAA project and its data, NOAA will not answer these rationally and so they have forced an investigation, you can read about some of these concerns here:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-wa...
The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with other all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.
They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world’s best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.
Adjustments are largely to sea surface temperatures (SST) and appear to align ship measurements of SST with night marine air temperature (NMAT) estimates, which have their own data bias problems.
The extend of the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) is not justified by any evidence as to the magnitude of the appropriate adjustment, which appears to be far smaller.
1
There are better ways to sort out unethical behavior such as conflicts of interest or fudged results. Government scientists should not have to fear having their casual communications, which may be full of half baked notions and speculations with trusted colleagues, taken up and misrepresented by industry lawyers and opportunistic politicians. There is a glaring inconsistency when freedom of information requests for written records of any sort can be used without discretion to harass government scientists working on controversial environmental or medical/pharmaceutical issues, while industry has every opportunity to commission numerous studies and release only those that support their contentions and then only in legal discovery.
I fail to see that the public good is served by this asymmetry.
I fail to see that the public good is served by this asymmetry.
9
Well sure, make all the scientist emails open. But first, let's make all the journalist emails open. It's pretty analogous after all: doesn't the public have an interest in seeing all the intermediate steps, the full interviews, the pressure from different sources? What are journalists hiding? What would whistle-blowers find?
But wait, you say, what about the privacy of confidential sources? What about the practicality of sorting through tens of thousands of emails to separate confidential ones from relevant ones? What about possible Pulitzer-Prize-winning stories that have not yet been published?
Ah yes, and therein lies the rub. We need free communications to debate our science and to formulate new ideas. And many academics are subject to Freedom of Information requests if they are state employees (e.g. Washington state). But actually requesting emails is most often a form of harassment: it's onerous to sort through tens of thousands of emails to make sure that personal ones are removed, to make sure that private emails about students are removed, to make sure that legal communications are removed, to make sure that not-yet-published research and grant proposals are not revealed to our competitors. In effect the request is an enormously expensive and time-consuming burden on scientists that has the effect of chilling science. Oh wait, perhaps "chilling" science is exactly what some people want to do to research on global warming...
But wait, you say, what about the privacy of confidential sources? What about the practicality of sorting through tens of thousands of emails to separate confidential ones from relevant ones? What about possible Pulitzer-Prize-winning stories that have not yet been published?
Ah yes, and therein lies the rub. We need free communications to debate our science and to formulate new ideas. And many academics are subject to Freedom of Information requests if they are state employees (e.g. Washington state). But actually requesting emails is most often a form of harassment: it's onerous to sort through tens of thousands of emails to make sure that personal ones are removed, to make sure that private emails about students are removed, to make sure that legal communications are removed, to make sure that not-yet-published research and grant proposals are not revealed to our competitors. In effect the request is an enormously expensive and time-consuming burden on scientists that has the effect of chilling science. Oh wait, perhaps "chilling" science is exactly what some people want to do to research on global warming...
44
This is a really poorly written argument. I'll address a couple of its points:
First and foremost, nobody gives up their right to privacy when becoming a government employee - not teachers, law enforcement, legislators - nor do the employees at the many private companies who accept government funds (Boeing, Halliburton, etc.). Not only would be unconstitutional to require them to do so, it would be yet another disincentive to public service.
Second, the public is in no way barred from the research findings of publicly funded research - quite the opposite. You confuse emails and private communication with research findings.
You seem to indiscriminately mix publicly funded science with corporate research - the two couldn't be more different, and corporate sleaze has nothing to do with your argument (although I understand why you brought it in, that's where some of your most powerful anecdotes come from).
And finally to those anecdotes. The fact that emails quite often contain evidence of immoral or illegal is a) widely known, so you don't need to pile on anecdotes of private communications that contain smoking guns, and b) completely irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality. That is, the fact that some publicly funded scientists do bad things doesn't mean they should sacrifice rights. They are far from the least pure in this regard.
First and foremost, nobody gives up their right to privacy when becoming a government employee - not teachers, law enforcement, legislators - nor do the employees at the many private companies who accept government funds (Boeing, Halliburton, etc.). Not only would be unconstitutional to require them to do so, it would be yet another disincentive to public service.
Second, the public is in no way barred from the research findings of publicly funded research - quite the opposite. You confuse emails and private communication with research findings.
You seem to indiscriminately mix publicly funded science with corporate research - the two couldn't be more different, and corporate sleaze has nothing to do with your argument (although I understand why you brought it in, that's where some of your most powerful anecdotes come from).
And finally to those anecdotes. The fact that emails quite often contain evidence of immoral or illegal is a) widely known, so you don't need to pile on anecdotes of private communications that contain smoking guns, and b) completely irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality. That is, the fact that some publicly funded scientists do bad things doesn't mean they should sacrifice rights. They are far from the least pure in this regard.
20
Mr Thacker has exploited an obvious observation (some people engage in misfeasance) to use that observation to tar and feather ALL people who call themselves Scientists. That plain and simply is DEMOGOGRY.
In its total the editorial demonstrates a poor understanding of the scientific method. As pdj has indicted the ethos in Science is based on open communication of results. The correspondence which Mr Thacker would like to make public are not Scientific results they are the means by which individuals reach an understanding (which in this case happens to be a Scientific result)
By requiring the various Government Regulatory agencies to blindly accept as valid the results reported to them by Corporations and the testimony provided by Corporate Agents (sometimes erroneously called Scientists) Corporations and Government are essentially trying to Legislate the Scientific Method. This silliness effectively opens the door for malfeasance.
You don't close that door by demanding transparency of all correspondence. You close it by recognizing that you tried to fix something that wasn't broken. That means re-arming the regulatory agencies with funding and competence.
In its total the editorial demonstrates a poor understanding of the scientific method. As pdj has indicted the ethos in Science is based on open communication of results. The correspondence which Mr Thacker would like to make public are not Scientific results they are the means by which individuals reach an understanding (which in this case happens to be a Scientific result)
By requiring the various Government Regulatory agencies to blindly accept as valid the results reported to them by Corporations and the testimony provided by Corporate Agents (sometimes erroneously called Scientists) Corporations and Government are essentially trying to Legislate the Scientific Method. This silliness effectively opens the door for malfeasance.
You don't close that door by demanding transparency of all correspondence. You close it by recognizing that you tried to fix something that wasn't broken. That means re-arming the regulatory agencies with funding and competence.
4
Paul Thacker makes several convincing points and generally makes the case for transparency - especially when public funds pay the tab for the research.
Still, it's not quite as clear-cut as this editorial would have it. During the course of evaluating data, processes, or outcomes - scientists often have (and must have) robust and sometimes spirited conversations. Sometime these require casting doubt as to the competence, qualifications, or the good intentions of others. We have to have ways to informally vet alternatives in ways that remain "off the record."
Some measure of private informal communication must be afforded to scientists for "internal discussions.
Those who would demand complete transparency of government scientists should offer comparable transparency if they are government agencies.
I'll be way more supportive of this effort for scientific transparency after I see all the staff emails from Representative Larmar Smith. Along with the list of his donors.
Still, it's not quite as clear-cut as this editorial would have it. During the course of evaluating data, processes, or outcomes - scientists often have (and must have) robust and sometimes spirited conversations. Sometime these require casting doubt as to the competence, qualifications, or the good intentions of others. We have to have ways to informally vet alternatives in ways that remain "off the record."
Some measure of private informal communication must be afforded to scientists for "internal discussions.
Those who would demand complete transparency of government scientists should offer comparable transparency if they are government agencies.
I'll be way more supportive of this effort for scientific transparency after I see all the staff emails from Representative Larmar Smith. Along with the list of his donors.
31
This editorial engages in a classic moat-and-bailey with the concept of transparency. When scientists talk about transparency they mean of data, methods and material. Everyone, given adequate funds, should be able to recreate any scientific experiment down to the letter, and get comparable results if said study is accurate.
No scientist I have met in my time in industry or academia has ever argued for the sort of doors-fully-open transparency being called for here, and for good reason. Just like any workplace, emails don't represent a fully-formed, public ready depiction of the work being done. And in the absence of real, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing or malfeasance, this grab for NOAA email is nothing more than a measure of political grandstanding and intimidation. And this isn't ideal speculation, if we think back to 2009, hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit were used to trump up global warming denialism.
The author here has not explained at all how the emails at hand will answer real, live questions, or in anyway aid scientific or general public inquiry in a serious way. Moreover, the author's comparison with the incident under the Bush administration is spurious. I can't take seriously that the author is to have us believe that a top-down censoring of a factual accurate NOAA statement, as supported by countless other scientific agencies is the same as resisting a politically charged seizure of emails under the charge of a general climate conspiracy.
No scientist I have met in my time in industry or academia has ever argued for the sort of doors-fully-open transparency being called for here, and for good reason. Just like any workplace, emails don't represent a fully-formed, public ready depiction of the work being done. And in the absence of real, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing or malfeasance, this grab for NOAA email is nothing more than a measure of political grandstanding and intimidation. And this isn't ideal speculation, if we think back to 2009, hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit were used to trump up global warming denialism.
The author here has not explained at all how the emails at hand will answer real, live questions, or in anyway aid scientific or general public inquiry in a serious way. Moreover, the author's comparison with the incident under the Bush administration is spurious. I can't take seriously that the author is to have us believe that a top-down censoring of a factual accurate NOAA statement, as supported by countless other scientific agencies is the same as resisting a politically charged seizure of emails under the charge of a general climate conspiracy.
8
I edit a journal. As a result, I have lots of email correspondence. A lot of it is from reviewers of articles. Most reviewers expect to be anonymous. Some authors also want to be anonymous. There are good reasons for anonymity. If everyone thought that all emails would become public, I would have an even harder time getting honest reviews than I have now. (Reviewers are volunteers. They, and editors, do not get paid.)
I sometimes communicate by email with other scientists. Sometimes I state political opinions. These kinds of communications need not be done in writing. If I thought they would be public, I would avoid that by picking up the phone (and playing telephone tag if necessary).
While it is true that most email is not secure and never has been, it is a great convenience that has allowed science, and scholarship in general, to become place independent, truly global.
There are thus two sides to the prospect of everything becoming public. It could harm the entire enterprise.
It is more difficult for me to see two sides of another issue that you do not mention. Most government funded research is still published by profit-hungry proprietary journal publishers. They are even allowed to keep their paywall for a year, regardless of the immediate importance of the results being published. This is totally unnecessary and inefficient.
All research should be published in journals that are free to authors and readers alike, like mine.
I sometimes communicate by email with other scientists. Sometimes I state political opinions. These kinds of communications need not be done in writing. If I thought they would be public, I would avoid that by picking up the phone (and playing telephone tag if necessary).
While it is true that most email is not secure and never has been, it is a great convenience that has allowed science, and scholarship in general, to become place independent, truly global.
There are thus two sides to the prospect of everything becoming public. It could harm the entire enterprise.
It is more difficult for me to see two sides of another issue that you do not mention. Most government funded research is still published by profit-hungry proprietary journal publishers. They are even allowed to keep their paywall for a year, regardless of the immediate importance of the results being published. This is totally unnecessary and inefficient.
All research should be published in journals that are free to authors and readers alike, like mine.
10
I'm a scientist with past federal funding, easing into retirement at 70+.
I've had numerous collaborations with scientists in other countries in which we exchange ideas, preliminary drafts of papers, etc. In some of these exchanges we bounce ideas off each other -- some turn out to be wrong, others lead nowhere and some produce results. This back and forth is part of the scientific process. What once took place at the blackboard, now goes on over the web.
It would put a real chill on scientific collaboration if all our dead-ends and false starts were to become public.
I also serve on editorial boards of journals and exchange privileged information -- ideally this is done on secure web servers, but in practice a lot is done by e-mail. I've got more accounts and passwords for different journals and funding agencies than I can keep track of. Whoops, does ALL e-mails include the ones that give me log in information to submit a reference securely?
Some information, such as the raw data on which publications are based should be available. In fact, I think that funding agencies and many journals already require this.
But to make very e-mail I send to another scientist public would be absurd.
I've had numerous collaborations with scientists in other countries in which we exchange ideas, preliminary drafts of papers, etc. In some of these exchanges we bounce ideas off each other -- some turn out to be wrong, others lead nowhere and some produce results. This back and forth is part of the scientific process. What once took place at the blackboard, now goes on over the web.
It would put a real chill on scientific collaboration if all our dead-ends and false starts were to become public.
I also serve on editorial boards of journals and exchange privileged information -- ideally this is done on secure web servers, but in practice a lot is done by e-mail. I've got more accounts and passwords for different journals and funding agencies than I can keep track of. Whoops, does ALL e-mails include the ones that give me log in information to submit a reference securely?
Some information, such as the raw data on which publications are based should be available. In fact, I think that funding agencies and many journals already require this.
But to make very e-mail I send to another scientist public would be absurd.
14
In some cases, if not for uncovered emails we wouldn't even know of the problem, such as conflicts of interests, collusion between some scientists and Big Pharma, or unreported drug side effects, etc. So I would agree that if no other means of establishing the truth is available, using indirect evidence, making emails public can be used as the last resort, with understanding that clear harm can be done to, e.g. very important peer review process. But in the case of the study in question a much better option is available - ask scientists outside of the organization to take the data (all data is available) , check the calculation, validate the assumptions, try to reproduce the result. Prove or disprove the conclusion of the study. Isn't how science is supposed to operate?
1
Comparing climate scientists with scientists who conduct research on the behalf of big tobacco or big pharma is a red herring. It is an assumption among right wingers that climate scientists have not only perpetrated a ingenious hoax of global proportions that has lasted for decades, but that they do it for profit. The only "scientists" who have proven paper trails leading to a profit motive, like UVA Professor Emeritus Fred Singer, have always been shown to be climate change deniers. The argument presented here is similar to the one for pushing voter ID laws - ambulance chasing. Bad science is invariably exposed through the peer-review process and frauds in fields as diverse as medicine and archaeology. When representatives from the US Congress have in the past reviewed only titles of scientific grants they have presumed to know what the science is about and been wrong. The same was true when emails were made public during 'Climate Gate' in 2009-2010. at least three independent reviews eventually exonerated the climate scientists accused of wrongdoing, but not before their names were dragged through the mud and millions spent on a fruitless witch hunt. To say the public should be "alarmed" about NOAA and other agencies protecting the scientific discussions of their grantees is partisan hype masquerading as responsible government oversight.
10
That publicly funded research ought to be publicly available and transparently reported is a noble goal, but publishing scientists' e-mails is an odd way to achieve it. It would make more sense to advocate that any research funded in part or in whole by public dollars be published in open-access journals rather than expensive, exclusive publications like Nature or Science.
Access to e-mails is important not for communicating research but for political purposes, sometimes laudable, sometimes less so. It's not clear to me why subpoenas are an insufficient tool when scientific wrongdoing is suspected, and I see little benefit to allowing politicians and others to scrutinize the daily correspondence of scientists doing research in controversial areas; it seems much more likely that such transparency would result in self-censorship and people leaving the field.
If this is the quality of argumentation which Mr. Thacker usually produces, I am not surprised the readership of PLoS objected to his editorials.
Access to e-mails is important not for communicating research but for political purposes, sometimes laudable, sometimes less so. It's not clear to me why subpoenas are an insufficient tool when scientific wrongdoing is suspected, and I see little benefit to allowing politicians and others to scrutinize the daily correspondence of scientists doing research in controversial areas; it seems much more likely that such transparency would result in self-censorship and people leaving the field.
If this is the quality of argumentation which Mr. Thacker usually produces, I am not surprised the readership of PLoS objected to his editorials.
6
Mr. Thacker make a most absurd case to justify the bulling and intimidation of climate scientist by politicians who represent energy companies. His main comparison between government scientists and tobacco and pharmaceutical industry is preposterous, almost comical.
While NOAA is concerned with science, Coca-Cola, GlaxoSmithKline, Exxon, Philip Morris and co. are exclusively profit obsessed and would willfully put the health and well being of society - and real people- in danger.
We suppose to trust "experts" in congress whose concerned is in preserving big oil grip on our economy to be the right, impartial people to dissect scientific data from millions of emails.
Or while in the process, perhaps Mr. Thacker and congress would like also to examine trove of emails in order to discover the extant of which Exxon Mobile went to hide their scientific data pointing out to potentially catastrophic global warming back in the seventies or how they knowingly spouted misinformation and lies about that research.
But it will be an absurd to be asking for honesty and integrity from people who are paid top dollars not to posses those virtues.
While NOAA is concerned with science, Coca-Cola, GlaxoSmithKline, Exxon, Philip Morris and co. are exclusively profit obsessed and would willfully put the health and well being of society - and real people- in danger.
We suppose to trust "experts" in congress whose concerned is in preserving big oil grip on our economy to be the right, impartial people to dissect scientific data from millions of emails.
Or while in the process, perhaps Mr. Thacker and congress would like also to examine trove of emails in order to discover the extant of which Exxon Mobile went to hide their scientific data pointing out to potentially catastrophic global warming back in the seventies or how they knowingly spouted misinformation and lies about that research.
But it will be an absurd to be asking for honesty and integrity from people who are paid top dollars not to posses those virtues.
6
If the government does not wish the country to revert to Dark Ages, it must support education and scientific research. However, the less it meddles in how research is done, the better it is for the results and eventual benefit to the society. One can live happily, believing that the Earth is flat and there is no warming of the Earth's surface. But it becomes bad, when a Texan politician with a B.A. degree in American Studies and a later law degree -- neither in natural sciences -- starts interfering in the conduct of research on a subject that may, or may not, be palatable to some on the grounds of religious beliefs or other prejudices.
Scientists are not better than other humans who are prone to err, misbehave, embezzle, or falsify data. The latter is moral turpitude that should make the falsifier driven out of the community of scientists to drumbeat, blaring horn, and burning of the academic gown and cap.
There is much in the field of research on climate change and global warming that is based on faith: how good are the data collected? How good are the mathematical models interpreting them? Could we be way off the truth?
All such questions are inherent in any branch of science or medicine, but research should go on and without interference from self-named political "expertasters".
Scientists are not better than other humans who are prone to err, misbehave, embezzle, or falsify data. The latter is moral turpitude that should make the falsifier driven out of the community of scientists to drumbeat, blaring horn, and burning of the academic gown and cap.
There is much in the field of research on climate change and global warming that is based on faith: how good are the data collected? How good are the mathematical models interpreting them? Could we be way off the truth?
All such questions are inherent in any branch of science or medicine, but research should go on and without interference from self-named political "expertasters".
2
There are some reasonable points here, but in general this is an unwarranted attack on researchers (the vast majority of whom are doing good, ethical research). And it would be totally counterproductive to make all email "transparent". Email is just electronic mail, but more efficient. It is intended to be private and informal communication, and while potentially subject to institutional and public oversight, there is generlly no reason why it should be made routinely public without a specific freedom of information act request, warrant, or ethics inquiry, and only when there was evidence of malfeasance.
If there was some sort of requirement that all emails were made instantly transparent, scientists would abandon email, despite having invented it. It would be preferable to use snail mail, write backwards and/or with invisible ink or whatever.
This piece appears to be a somewhat veiled airing of dirty laundry concerning disagreement over GMO research, and as such it is itself a bit suspect, ethically speaking. While PLOS has relatively strong standards for disclosure of funding sources and potential conflict of interest, these seem to be insufficient for the author. That doesn't mean that scientists should publish their emails.
If there was some sort of requirement that all emails were made instantly transparent, scientists would abandon email, despite having invented it. It would be preferable to use snail mail, write backwards and/or with invisible ink or whatever.
This piece appears to be a somewhat veiled airing of dirty laundry concerning disagreement over GMO research, and as such it is itself a bit suspect, ethically speaking. While PLOS has relatively strong standards for disclosure of funding sources and potential conflict of interest, these seem to be insufficient for the author. That doesn't mean that scientists should publish their emails.
7
The science itself either stands up to peer review scientific scrutiny of it doesn't. The scientific method has build in safeguards for vet bias. Occasionally bad science produces false results, but it is eventually caught by other research. The general conclusions of climate science regarding global warming are widely supported by diverse studies conducted around the globe. These studies have been and continue to be scrutinized. The scientists emails have no bearing whatsoever on published studies and related results. Everything possibly needed for critics to dispute the results are in the studies themselves. That's how science works.
7
Mr. Thacker appears ill informed about the academic scientific enterprise. First, scientists compete against each other not only for funding, but also in developing new concepts, ideas, approaches, techniques, and findings. This competition is healthy and necessary for a thriving research environment. Opening email communication as proposed here would wreak havoc with this process. Second, anonymity is an essential component for some aspects of the scientific process. Reviewers of proposals and journal manuscripts may be reluctant to critique freely if their identity is revealed. Thirdly, in academia, student mentoring and evaluation are part of the scientific process. Making these records public is against current federal law for good reason. Fourthly, publications are edited extensively to clarify the message and to avoid confusion. Applying the same standard of editing to informal emails is simply unrealistic. The release of such emails to a wider audience would generally do more harm than good in informing the public.
It is also worth pointing out that every scientist is biased, in one way or the other. The bias may stem from conflicts of interest based on funding (regardless of source), but may also be political, cultural, religious, and so on. Focusing the discussion solely on industry funding as this op-ed does is biased and not helpful. Lastly, US academic research has always benefited from private and industry sponsorship, generally to great benefit of this nation.
It is also worth pointing out that every scientist is biased, in one way or the other. The bias may stem from conflicts of interest based on funding (regardless of source), but may also be political, cultural, religious, and so on. Focusing the discussion solely on industry funding as this op-ed does is biased and not helpful. Lastly, US academic research has always benefited from private and industry sponsorship, generally to great benefit of this nation.
6
Thacker ignores the single important fact that the culture of science requires the publication of reproducible results. Any scientist---and it has happened (Pons and Fleishman for cold fusion)---who chooses to report a non-reproducible result risks expulsion from the scientific community. Honest mistakes (as revealed in the published results) are tolerated (false B-mode signals in CMB data analysis), but willful misrepresentation is not. Any two or three scientific groups who analyzed the same data as NOAA should get the same result--this is the standard way of doing science. Any other process would not even be science--we'd need to examine the personal letters of Newton, Einstein, Fermi, Curie, etc. before their science could be appreciated---preposterous!
Also, NOAA is not presenting some dramatic new result. It is people like Lamar Smith who are making an extraordinary claim that an increase in CO2 does not increase temperature, therefore, they are the ones who need to produce extraordinary evidence. NOAA's report is consistent with science that goes back to the 19th century (Arrenihuis), and explains the climate of Venus. What SCIENCE does Lamar Smith present to dispute more than a century of evidence? Hint: it won't be found in any emails.
Also, NOAA is not presenting some dramatic new result. It is people like Lamar Smith who are making an extraordinary claim that an increase in CO2 does not increase temperature, therefore, they are the ones who need to produce extraordinary evidence. NOAA's report is consistent with science that goes back to the 19th century (Arrenihuis), and explains the climate of Venus. What SCIENCE does Lamar Smith present to dispute more than a century of evidence? Hint: it won't be found in any emails.
6
sc,
The Karl results are not reproducible UNLESS one warps the data, ignores other data, omits required data, fails to account for changes in measurement methodology and all other temperature sets.
NOAA will not answer why this is the case.
The emails may well explain the basis for this, as NOAA will not explain (how could they).
The Karl results are not reproducible UNLESS one warps the data, ignores other data, omits required data, fails to account for changes in measurement methodology and all other temperature sets.
NOAA will not answer why this is the case.
The emails may well explain the basis for this, as NOAA will not explain (how could they).
1
Instead of accepting the subterfuge and diversionary tactics of Lamar Smith and his cohorts, why not just hold Congress to similar standards as the scientists they so flippantly deride? After all, we know that Science produces results. Modern politicians, not so much.
Let the politicians publish their bills to a public website well in advance of any vote. Publish the name of all the bill's authors, along with a list of their top donors that stand to benefit. Let the bill be subject to intense public scrutiny, review, and criticism. When a part of a bill is found to be incoherent, unclear, or inconsistent, let the authors debate their points openly and publicly. Remove all pork as it is found. Build in ways to validate whether the bill (if it becomes law) is doing what it intends. Once all this is done to the satisfaction of, let's say, 51% of the citizen reviewers, it can go to Congress of a vote.
We live in a vastly different time than our founding fathers. We have this thing called the Internet now. I doubt the average citizen would care to actively participate in maintaining the laws that govern us all. But a system could easily be designed to use crowd-sourcing to identify our top national priorities, and how to achieve them. Governing is too important to be left to the politicians.
Let the politicians publish their bills to a public website well in advance of any vote. Publish the name of all the bill's authors, along with a list of their top donors that stand to benefit. Let the bill be subject to intense public scrutiny, review, and criticism. When a part of a bill is found to be incoherent, unclear, or inconsistent, let the authors debate their points openly and publicly. Remove all pork as it is found. Build in ways to validate whether the bill (if it becomes law) is doing what it intends. Once all this is done to the satisfaction of, let's say, 51% of the citizen reviewers, it can go to Congress of a vote.
We live in a vastly different time than our founding fathers. We have this thing called the Internet now. I doubt the average citizen would care to actively participate in maintaining the laws that govern us all. But a system could easily be designed to use crowd-sourcing to identify our top national priorities, and how to achieve them. Governing is too important to be left to the politicians.
6
The author seeks to conflate actual investigations into wrongdoing with a fishing expedition. He cites the 2007 investigation into corruption in medical research. This investigation sought access to specific documents and communications by specific researchers who had been implicated by evidence. In other words, there was "probable cause" to examine their correspondence. Representative Smith is simply demanding full access to the email accounts of government scientists because he doesn't like the results of their work. He hopes to find embarrassing and impolitic statements to use to undermine their credibility. He has no evidence or cause to suspect that those statements exist or that the research done by them was biased or flawed. He just hopes to unearth ammunition to use against them in a public relations battle. To pretend that there is a parallel between the two cases is disingenuous at best.
15
Andrew,
Not at all, lost already of grave concern.
There are a raft of serious questions regarding this NOAA project and its data, NOAA will not answer these rationally and so they have forced an investigation, you can read about some of these concerns here:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-wa...
The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with other all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.
They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world’s best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.
Adjustments are largely to sea surface temperatures (SST) and appear to align ship measurements of SST with night marine air temperature (NMAT) estimates, which have their own data bias problems.
The extend of the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) is not justified by any evidence as to the magnitude of the appropriate adjustment, which appears to be far smaller.
Not at all, lost already of grave concern.
There are a raft of serious questions regarding this NOAA project and its data, NOAA will not answer these rationally and so they have forced an investigation, you can read about some of these concerns here:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-wa...
The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with other all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.
They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world’s best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.
Adjustments are largely to sea surface temperatures (SST) and appear to align ship measurements of SST with night marine air temperature (NMAT) estimates, which have their own data bias problems.
The extend of the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) is not justified by any evidence as to the magnitude of the appropriate adjustment, which appears to be far smaller.
1
Anyone who has even a minor comprehension of the scientific process knows that it is important for team workers to be able to freely discuss their research in ways that are easily misconstrued by uninformed reviewers.
Our partisan political system is populated with proudly self-identified "not scientists" who seek these communications solely for the purpose of extracting out-of-context "talking points" to try to prove their anti-Obama, anti-science rhetoric, which they will then use in their ongoing efforts to stop scientific research. In this case climate change is their target, but undoubtedly if they are successful they will use this strategy to strangle research into any other area that goes against their party positions as well.
The author of this op-ed obviously agrees with this abuse and misuse of appropriate and necessary research process. Thank goodness the folks at NOAA are pushing back. Our scientists must be free to discuss any and all thoughts and ideas while performing research without fear that their methods will be politicized.
Our partisan political system is populated with proudly self-identified "not scientists" who seek these communications solely for the purpose of extracting out-of-context "talking points" to try to prove their anti-Obama, anti-science rhetoric, which they will then use in their ongoing efforts to stop scientific research. In this case climate change is their target, but undoubtedly if they are successful they will use this strategy to strangle research into any other area that goes against their party positions as well.
The author of this op-ed obviously agrees with this abuse and misuse of appropriate and necessary research process. Thank goodness the folks at NOAA are pushing back. Our scientists must be free to discuss any and all thoughts and ideas while performing research without fear that their methods will be politicized.
6
If anyone has a fair to middling expectation that their e-mails will be made public, two things will happen - They will cease to use e-mails, or the e-mails will become so bland that no real information or opinions will be in them. Many scientists who do legal work are used to this. The result will be less information exchange and slower progress.
What's more, half-baked opinions and provisional theories are the stuff of science and the lifeblood of collaborative work. Opinions change as work progresses and as information gets produced. If politicians get hold of these sorts of communications, soon they will be accusing scientists of "flip-flopping" because they revise their opinions, when that's exactly what scientists are employed to do. Letting professional politicians drive science is a recipe for stagnation and mediocrity.
What's more, half-baked opinions and provisional theories are the stuff of science and the lifeblood of collaborative work. Opinions change as work progresses and as information gets produced. If politicians get hold of these sorts of communications, soon they will be accusing scientists of "flip-flopping" because they revise their opinions, when that's exactly what scientists are employed to do. Letting professional politicians drive science is a recipe for stagnation and mediocrity.
8
Would you want your personal email to be public record? Requiring scientists to publish papers publicly and to make raw data publicly available is one thing, but requiring all personal communication to be public is something else entirely.
Science is made through initial ideas, failed hypotheses, critique of the work of others (who may have high standing in the field), advice from trusted colleagues, and development of knowledge from an unfounded idea through the evidence to a well-supported theory that you then publish. It is important for the public to understand the complicated roads to science, but dumping all our personal ideas and failures and critiques into the public will just steal the ideas from the collaborative, and damage the careers of anyone who was privately critical of others (ignoring all the other private information on university email accounts). We should be judged on the data and the ideas we think are supported--we should not be publicly judged by false starts and wrong ideas and frustrations that happen along the way if we want science to continue.
If everything I say over a university email is made public, then either scientists stop talking to each other, or we all just switch to using different email addresses.
Science is made through initial ideas, failed hypotheses, critique of the work of others (who may have high standing in the field), advice from trusted colleagues, and development of knowledge from an unfounded idea through the evidence to a well-supported theory that you then publish. It is important for the public to understand the complicated roads to science, but dumping all our personal ideas and failures and critiques into the public will just steal the ideas from the collaborative, and damage the careers of anyone who was privately critical of others (ignoring all the other private information on university email accounts). We should be judged on the data and the ideas we think are supported--we should not be publicly judged by false starts and wrong ideas and frustrations that happen along the way if we want science to continue.
If everything I say over a university email is made public, then either scientists stop talking to each other, or we all just switch to using different email addresses.
6
Perhaps the emails, meeting notes and strategy minutes of those who deny climate change, the efficacy of vaccinations, clean air and water regulations, efficacy and dangers of drugs and pesticides , just topics that first leapt to mind for me, should be subject to total public scrutiny as well. Perhaps the whispered communications in shuttered offices should be made public knowledge? How? That's another topic.
Just a thought.
"As federal funding has fallen, some university scientists have allied themselves with corporate interests. " University scientists are not a special breed of human being immune to subornation. Neither are politicians. And neither are university administrators who need research funding from third parties (government or corporate) to maintain the prestige of their institutions.
We are in a pretty pickle when nobody trusts anybody, and money conquers all.
We need scientists more than ever. Scientists have changed the world for the better. Yes I say that with no abashment. We need them to be able to do what they can do best, study new things, and yes, boldly explore what they have the education to do.
Pure physics seems to be the only academic field left that still has funding to explore the unknown, CERN is going strong. So far, little commercial gain is evident in their exploration of the evolving nature of particle physics. It will come, if we are all smart enough to let those scientists do their thing.
Who, exactly, is corrupt?
Just a thought.
"As federal funding has fallen, some university scientists have allied themselves with corporate interests. " University scientists are not a special breed of human being immune to subornation. Neither are politicians. And neither are university administrators who need research funding from third parties (government or corporate) to maintain the prestige of their institutions.
We are in a pretty pickle when nobody trusts anybody, and money conquers all.
We need scientists more than ever. Scientists have changed the world for the better. Yes I say that with no abashment. We need them to be able to do what they can do best, study new things, and yes, boldly explore what they have the education to do.
Pure physics seems to be the only academic field left that still has funding to explore the unknown, CERN is going strong. So far, little commercial gain is evident in their exploration of the evolving nature of particle physics. It will come, if we are all smart enough to let those scientists do their thing.
Who, exactly, is corrupt?
4
As a scientist working in the UK I am very familiar with the contents of scientist's emails. I am sure they are full of the same stuff as everybody else's emails, including carping about colleagues, whinging about employment conditions, off-colour jokes at friend's expense, and so on. They are also full of confidential personal information about candidates for new posts, nominations for prizes, etc. If I believed that every email I sent to the US might appear in the press the next day without any judicial process being required, I would simply delete any US recipients from most of my posts and restrict any posts I did send to the US to the bald statement of facts (and refuse to reply to any requests for information or recommendations that would be sent by email). Many of my non-US colleagues would react the same way. OK, so US scientists would save some time not getting yet another Dilbert link sent by email, but they would lose out on an important part of the vital give and take of the scientific community.
6
Mr. Thacker is being disingenuous. The reason research is being funded by corporations is that congress has destroyed public funding for science because Republicans are suspicious of scientists as academic eletists who always seem to reach conclusions that are inimical to their supposed interests. Even though our modern society relies to a very large degree on science and technology, many people do not understand the scientific process and the rapid and enormous changes it has wrought, leaving them with a feeling of not being in control of their lives. This lack of control makes many people fearful, often rejecting many of the advances that actually benefit them because of their lack of understanding.
Unfortunately, Mr. Thacker's call for releasing emails and greater transparency is really a way for this Republican congress to go on fishing expeditions to discredit scientific conclusions they don't agree with. When Bush was in office, his administration actively suppressed government scientists from releasing scientific reports that did not support their policies. Now that a Democratic administration is making policy, the Republican controlled congress simply cuts off funding for scientific research.
Unfortunately, Mr. Thacker's call for releasing emails and greater transparency is really a way for this Republican congress to go on fishing expeditions to discredit scientific conclusions they don't agree with. When Bush was in office, his administration actively suppressed government scientists from releasing scientific reports that did not support their policies. Now that a Democratic administration is making policy, the Republican controlled congress simply cuts off funding for scientific research.
37
I've worked on pure government research - emissions, energy efficiency, healthcare, economics. I've worked on corporate sponsored research. And I've worked on joint government/corporate research.
In more than 30 nations.
For 40+ years
All large scale centralized research has great value, and - in cycles - great bias.....or what one might call "fashions".
If you exchanged the words "government" and "corporate" in this article, each version would be equally accurate.
See recent government-sponsored research that shows when grant money is concentrated in specific government agencies, or companies, the themes studied tend to narrow around ones with the most funding, or political acceptance. See early debates on AIDS between the US and France for example. See many shifting debates on "poverty" around the world for decades.
See also how rapidly unrestricted science shifts current "best practice". Eat meat. Don't eat meat. Take aspirin. Don't take aspirin.
And note the near miraculous explosion of new genomic, computing, materials, and other innovations...which come from a wide variety of "command" (corporate and government) research....plus waves of "emergent" user-based discoveries on the new global networks of mobile phones, and open platforms of technology.
This article biases against "corporate".
Real-world data over time shows the true bias is in shifting concentrations of power and money - of all kinds.
An - unfettered - transparency is definitely the cure.
In more than 30 nations.
For 40+ years
All large scale centralized research has great value, and - in cycles - great bias.....or what one might call "fashions".
If you exchanged the words "government" and "corporate" in this article, each version would be equally accurate.
See recent government-sponsored research that shows when grant money is concentrated in specific government agencies, or companies, the themes studied tend to narrow around ones with the most funding, or political acceptance. See early debates on AIDS between the US and France for example. See many shifting debates on "poverty" around the world for decades.
See also how rapidly unrestricted science shifts current "best practice". Eat meat. Don't eat meat. Take aspirin. Don't take aspirin.
And note the near miraculous explosion of new genomic, computing, materials, and other innovations...which come from a wide variety of "command" (corporate and government) research....plus waves of "emergent" user-based discoveries on the new global networks of mobile phones, and open platforms of technology.
This article biases against "corporate".
Real-world data over time shows the true bias is in shifting concentrations of power and money - of all kinds.
An - unfettered - transparency is definitely the cure.
1
Transparency is long overdue in government funded research. While there is outright fraud in government funded research, the bigger fraud and waste are the reporting of dubious and unreproducible study results. After scientists report results, the government should withhold a portion (20%) of the grant until the results are reproduced in at least two other labs using the methods in the article. Reporting a failed experiment would get 100% funding since failure is at least as important (and maybe more so) than success. Research would benefit and instead of getting "one time wonders", we might get real research.
If you are skeptical of this assertion, ask how many novel patents fail to hold up on challenge because the patented method could not be reproduced. That is called a fraud on the Patent Office and it is used a a lot in court.
If you are skeptical of this assertion, ask how many novel patents fail to hold up on challenge because the patented method could not be reproduced. That is called a fraud on the Patent Office and it is used a a lot in court.
1
I would rather prefer that government funded scientists give up their findings and make the free public access to their publications a moral obligation. The number of free *meaning not having to pay a fee) open access scientific journals are increasing but some prestigious journals in which government funded research gets published are holding off from free access. It is admirable that the proceedings of the National Academy of Science is a free access journal published by the US academy of Science. The rest of the top journals should do the same or stay away from the information super highway and face censure. I have published in the past in journals that have restricted access based on payment of fees as well as journals with free open access and it is quite a contrast in the number of downloads for published articles. The free access have thousands of downloads compared to the once requiring a fee. As a scientist and an author there is a good feeling of spreading knowledge to a wider audience (that includes the economically challenged) through free access. With regard to emails, most of the time it is not difficult to find it through a proper Google search.
4
"Giving up emails" in research as a general practice is a terrible idea.
I have worked as a scientist for more than 30 years. This involves exchanges of ideas and vast amounts of speculation that leads to hypothesis testing and careful experimental design. The purpose of all this is to properly document and publish results, whether openly or internally for groups such as companies.
Emails are an incredibly useful to scientists, but they in no way meet generally accepted scientific standards for release and publication. Emails are like raw data. Absent context they are almost impossible to interpret correctly. They are unedited, often careless, usually intended for one or a few people, And often full of nicknames and jargon comprehensible to a few insiders.
While government research should be accountable, just as industrial research must be, emails should only be accessible through proper channels in answer to specific complaints or concerns. The alternative is fishing expeditions and witch hunts. Just as the government protects the emails of Congressmen, so it should protect the emails of its scientists.
I have worked as a scientist for more than 30 years. This involves exchanges of ideas and vast amounts of speculation that leads to hypothesis testing and careful experimental design. The purpose of all this is to properly document and publish results, whether openly or internally for groups such as companies.
Emails are an incredibly useful to scientists, but they in no way meet generally accepted scientific standards for release and publication. Emails are like raw data. Absent context they are almost impossible to interpret correctly. They are unedited, often careless, usually intended for one or a few people, And often full of nicknames and jargon comprehensible to a few insiders.
While government research should be accountable, just as industrial research must be, emails should only be accessible through proper channels in answer to specific complaints or concerns. The alternative is fishing expeditions and witch hunts. Just as the government protects the emails of Congressmen, so it should protect the emails of its scientists.
63
> Emails are like raw data. Absent context they are almost impossible to interpret correctly.
This is key. You know full well that if all email is made public, people will cherry pick what they find to support their hypothesis. The task of bringing down a scientific position you don't like never involves following the rules of good science.
This is key. You know full well that if all email is made public, people will cherry pick what they find to support their hypothesis. The task of bringing down a scientific position you don't like never involves following the rules of good science.
4
Before we have scientists make all their emails pubic, let's have Senators. How many "abusive practices" would we learn then?
79
I'm sure abo means making scientists' e-mails "public". Not so sure about Senators' e-mails.
4
If you are going to make any of the emails public you have to make all the emails public. When scientists are engaged in casual communication, it is far to easy to quote portions out of context, or edit them, so that they appear to be something other than what they are.
42
I’ve known my share of research scientists, and among the more prominent I can’t imagine a group more jealous of their innermost thoughts, of the rambling that goes on among colleagues that might morph into an idea that could transition to a funded study that could result in acclaim – and, hide the thought for fear of being regarded as hubristic the possibility of the immortality conferred by a Nobel.
The call for giving up emails isn’t as outrageous as one to openly share research notes in advance of publication, but it can get pretty close. If scientists knew that their emails were open to general scrutiny, and particularly by those who wished to use them to flog an agenda adverse to the beliefs of those scientists, then we can forget about anything even faintly resembling candor in them; and research generally would suffer, because tin-cans over an ocean for the sharing of thoughts isn’t too practical.
We shouldn’t permit fishing expeditions in this area any more than we permit fishing expeditions in properly run courts of law. Absent hard evidence of a crime or the contemplation of a crime, private communications, even by government-employed scientists, should remain private.
The call for giving up emails isn’t as outrageous as one to openly share research notes in advance of publication, but it can get pretty close. If scientists knew that their emails were open to general scrutiny, and particularly by those who wished to use them to flog an agenda adverse to the beliefs of those scientists, then we can forget about anything even faintly resembling candor in them; and research generally would suffer, because tin-cans over an ocean for the sharing of thoughts isn’t too practical.
We shouldn’t permit fishing expeditions in this area any more than we permit fishing expeditions in properly run courts of law. Absent hard evidence of a crime or the contemplation of a crime, private communications, even by government-employed scientists, should remain private.
115
The NYTimes has largely failed to report this issue, and has not represented NOAA or scientists well. It is unfortunate, to put it mildly, that they instead provide this argument from the unskeptical "skeptic" universe, without proper background or true facts, in an uncritical Sunday OpEd. Other scientific controversies may be as stated, but they are not parallel, which stinks like the manufactured controversy "climategate" based on stolen emails (helped by the Russian mafia) carefully edited to mislead (eight or nine investigations cleared scientists of anything but irritation and indiscretion in their communications).
I'm guessing Judith Curry, whose position as an attacker of scientists doing science in the climate field as represented by her OpEd on Fox, may be one of the"whistleblowers". The timeline of publication in Science and actual authors of the material in the complaints do not fit the narrative of "rushing".
This OpEd is on the wrong side of facts, the wrong side of history, and does active harm to public understanding of the very serious issues of climate change and global warming. We humans need better understanding, not false exploitation of freedom of information requests.
Rep Lamar Smith and Sen Ted Cruz, now wielding power over science in Congress, are dangerous, and distortion on the subject is legion on the right. Here's more:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/private-group-now-sues-noaa-for-c...
I'm guessing Judith Curry, whose position as an attacker of scientists doing science in the climate field as represented by her OpEd on Fox, may be one of the"whistleblowers". The timeline of publication in Science and actual authors of the material in the complaints do not fit the narrative of "rushing".
This OpEd is on the wrong side of facts, the wrong side of history, and does active harm to public understanding of the very serious issues of climate change and global warming. We humans need better understanding, not false exploitation of freedom of information requests.
Rep Lamar Smith and Sen Ted Cruz, now wielding power over science in Congress, are dangerous, and distortion on the subject is legion on the right. Here's more:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/private-group-now-sues-noaa-for-c...
203
The Washington Post *did* cover the issue; here's one link
http://tinyurl.com/jdlc6yt
(link is WaPo, NYT refused original)
If you like strong language, here:
"Blistering letter from House Committee member to Lamar Smith about his baseless smear campaign against NOAA scientists"
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/blistering-letter-from-house-committe...
Here's the Ted Cruz nonsense:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/
This quote is from a different article, for a humorous interlude:
"Cruz and Smith Subpoena Ice
"Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) have issued separate subpoenas for those they believe are withholding crucial information in order to advance President Obama’s global warming agenda. They have threatened criminal prosecution if the targets of their subpoenas fail to appear, or refuse to surrender their private e-mails.
"They target of their separate subpoenas: ice."
You'll have to look up the Judicial Watch lawsuit if you want to know more; they specialize in attacking Obama and Democrats.
http://tinyurl.com/jdlc6yt
(link is WaPo, NYT refused original)
If you like strong language, here:
"Blistering letter from House Committee member to Lamar Smith about his baseless smear campaign against NOAA scientists"
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/blistering-letter-from-house-committe...
Here's the Ted Cruz nonsense:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/
This quote is from a different article, for a humorous interlude:
"Cruz and Smith Subpoena Ice
"Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) have issued separate subpoenas for those they believe are withholding crucial information in order to advance President Obama’s global warming agenda. They have threatened criminal prosecution if the targets of their subpoenas fail to appear, or refuse to surrender their private e-mails.
"They target of their separate subpoenas: ice."
You'll have to look up the Judicial Watch lawsuit if you want to know more; they specialize in attacking Obama and Democrats.
81
Thanks to Susan Anderson for supplying all these links. The WaPo seems to be covering global warming (and the "controversy") quite well and in some detail; so well that I decided to subscribe so I can read it regularly. The Times has not been doing anything equivalent.
8
If you want to be free from this kind of intrusion then don't take a job that involves taxpayer funding. That's a fact.
1
This article mixes several different, orthogonal concerns in a rhetorical whirlwind of "Those awful scientists."
There are three major concerns here: access to scientific results, conflict of interest on part of scientists, and conflicts that affect public policy. Unless these concerns are clearly separated and delineated, investigatory abuses will occur.
If a university researcher accepts NSF, NIH or other government funds, they are obligated to openly publish their research. This is the standard channel for such results, not e-mail. E-mail messages while research is underway are usually unreliable, informal, loaded with intermediate, often erroneous ideas, and so forth. Frankly, I wouldn't give two cents or any credibility to such "results." Industrial researchers -- even when funded by the government -- are not expected to ever release e-mails except under lawful subpoena. Why should university researchers be treated differently?
Conflict of interest and its effect on public policy is a different matter. These conflicts cut to the heart of funding relationships which are outside the scope of actual science. Professional journals must require disclosure of funding sources such that conflicts can be clearly identified. This aspect of the scientific process should and must be transparent.
Overall, the conduct of scientific work, transparency and the right to privacy is a far more complicated problem than the author somewhat incoherent analysis.
-- Retired scientist
There are three major concerns here: access to scientific results, conflict of interest on part of scientists, and conflicts that affect public policy. Unless these concerns are clearly separated and delineated, investigatory abuses will occur.
If a university researcher accepts NSF, NIH or other government funds, they are obligated to openly publish their research. This is the standard channel for such results, not e-mail. E-mail messages while research is underway are usually unreliable, informal, loaded with intermediate, often erroneous ideas, and so forth. Frankly, I wouldn't give two cents or any credibility to such "results." Industrial researchers -- even when funded by the government -- are not expected to ever release e-mails except under lawful subpoena. Why should university researchers be treated differently?
Conflict of interest and its effect on public policy is a different matter. These conflicts cut to the heart of funding relationships which are outside the scope of actual science. Professional journals must require disclosure of funding sources such that conflicts can be clearly identified. This aspect of the scientific process should and must be transparent.
Overall, the conduct of scientific work, transparency and the right to privacy is a far more complicated problem than the author somewhat incoherent analysis.
-- Retired scientist
301
Agree completely - the data is the data. All public release of e-mail communications would do is generate wild rumors and speculation.
Funding sources should be public- internal communications should remain private. There are other, better ways to determine whether money is corrupting the research than to make all e-mails public. (Besides, anyone planning on illegal activity will just use their private e-mail account.)
Funding sources should be public- internal communications should remain private. There are other, better ways to determine whether money is corrupting the research than to make all e-mails public. (Besides, anyone planning on illegal activity will just use their private e-mail account.)
109
I agree fully with your arguments, with one exception.
Having worked on government-sponsored research for decades, and having watched from the inside as science was translated to "scientific results supporting specific policies" - the funding sources always, repeat, always influence the publication of results, and which streams of research get follow-on funding.
There is absolutely no way in the messiness of human relations to divorce "science" from "funding". See the history of science in all cultures. Start with Florence.
So - what true science, and good policy need, in a democracy is precisely the publication of.....
...."E-mail messages [that] while research is underway are usually unreliable, informal, loaded with intermediate, often erroneous ideas, and so forth."
Scientists come in many flavors and are human.
The entire point of a democracy is to allow humanity to preserve and protect humanity of all kinds.
Having worked on government-sponsored research for decades, and having watched from the inside as science was translated to "scientific results supporting specific policies" - the funding sources always, repeat, always influence the publication of results, and which streams of research get follow-on funding.
There is absolutely no way in the messiness of human relations to divorce "science" from "funding". See the history of science in all cultures. Start with Florence.
So - what true science, and good policy need, in a democracy is precisely the publication of.....
...."E-mail messages [that] while research is underway are usually unreliable, informal, loaded with intermediate, often erroneous ideas, and so forth."
Scientists come in many flavors and are human.
The entire point of a democracy is to allow humanity to preserve and protect humanity of all kinds.
1
As a general rule, e-mails should not be characterized as "deliverables". In my experience (in another discipline) e-mails were a handy means of discussing problems and projects. Many of the e-mails were simply opinions, some of which were elegant, others crass or half-witted; none of which were meant for a public reading, much less a public crucifixion by a couple of legislators looking to take a cheap-shot. Until Mr. "former investigator for the United States Senate" can guarantee that such a move advocated by him will neither darken a free exchange of ideas or ruin the careers of honest men, the idea ought to remain on the shelf.
6