The report is out, and further investigation is forthcoming.
Excerpts from the report are below, where they considered 4 allegations. They say only one had merit. That will be the subject of the upcoming investigation.
Excerpts:
“It is clear to those who have followed the media and blogs over the last two months that there are two distinct and deeply polarized points of view that have emerged on this matter. One side views the emails as evidence of a clear cut violation of the public trust and seeks severe penalties for Dr. Mann and his colleagues. The other side sees these as nothing more than the private discussions of scientists engaged in a hotly debated topic of enormous social impact.
We are aware that some may seek to use the debate over Dr. Mann’s research conduct and that of his colleagues as a proxy for the larger and more substantive debate over the science of anthropogenic global warming and its societal (political and economic) ramifications. We have kept the two debates separate by only considering Dr. Mann’s conduct.”
…
“Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.
In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.”
An investigatory committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials will consider this matter and present its findings and recommendations to Dr. Henry C. Foley within 120 days of being charged. The committee will consist of the following five faculty members:
1. Dr. Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering;
2. Dr. Alan Walker, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Anthropology and Department of Biology;
3. Dr. A. Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Chemistry and Department of Physic;
4. Dr. Nina G. Jablonski, Head, Department of Anthropology; and
5. Dr. Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor, Department of Biology.
Ms. Candice Yekel, as Director of the Office for Research Protections and as the University’s Research Integrity Officer, will provide administrative support and assistance to the committee.
The investigatory committee’s charge will be to consider what are the bounds of accepted practice in this instance and whether or not Dr. Mann did indeed engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.
Read the report here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fox guarding hen-house.
Well, at least they seem to be taking this matter seriously and are following all the (apparently) necessary protocols. 😐
” John (10:05:55) :
Fox guarding hen-house.”
….with a hockeystick?
Whitewash.
@supercritical: lol!
Why isn’t Steve McIntyre on the committee? Couldn’t it be said that Professor Mann participated in defrauding the public and governments around the world with his hockey stick theory?
I’d be worried that two of the five are anthropologists, a very left-leaning profession of late not known for its objectivity.
I did not have relations with that hockey stick!
Politically speaking, it was the only possible outcome.
Not good for Mann because his detractors now have more time to dig. And dig they shall.
Mike Ramsey
I assume the question of Manns non release of data and methods, his obfuscation of M&M and his “peer review process” is part of this ongoing investigation?
Well, at least they didn’t stuff the panel with members of the World Wildlife Fund.
Extracts
He explained the content and meaning of the emails about which we inquired;
•
He explained that he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a given predetermined outcome;
•
He explained that he never used inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of his science;
•
He explained that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; and
•
He explained that he never engaged in activities or behaviors that were inconsistent with accepted academic practices.
end of extract.e
Well he would say that wouldn’t he?
He seems to be in Denial and the interviwers seem to eager to accept Mann’s expressions of guilt
In the UK in the past if a complaint was made about a Policeman the station where he was located carried out the investigation and more often than not the complaint was not upheld. Of course this was not acceptable to the Public or the Police as it undermined confidence. The University are wrong to carry out their own investigation.
The University has investigated Mr Manns conduct but has not carried out interviews with anyone else that could throw light on the matter.
They mention he has emails related to AR4. Will they publish?
You can bet your bottom dollar that Mr Mann will get a slight slap on the wrist and the Universities reputation will not be put at risk. I sincerely hope this is not the case.
OOPs sorry Freudian slip should be Mann’s expressions of innocence.
You’d think the main Mann would simply resign and save them all the bother of looking even more foolish 120 days from now.
It is a white-wash; I quickly read the report and the only outside scientists they consulted were Kennedy of Stanford/Science and North of Texas A&M.
Penn State is standing behind MBH98. It’s wrong and it’s a very sad day for science.
My experience with anthropologists tells me that the anthropology professors are likely to be liberal blowhards. I’ll be surprised if they aren’t among the true believers in AGW.
but, but but but Mann has impecible credentials also. They must be “Peers”
Take your time. We will of course hope donors will also take their time and 120 days from now they can devise a panel to evaluate the Impecible PennState and send their money elswhere if Mann is not in the State Penn.
Is 3 hots and a cot too humbling for a “cold” crime?
Given that there is no evidence that the emails were stolen as opposed to leaked shouldn’t there be an “allegedly” before the purloined?
I notice that no mathematician is on the review committee. Certainly no need for anyone to review Dr. Manns usage of statistics…
Given the four questions, #4 was the easiest one to find worth further investigation.
It seems to me the committee should have talked with McIntyre, perhaps they decided early on that #4 would be in the followup investigation and hence didn’t need McIntyre’s input for this round. (Allegation 4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?)
Allegation 1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data? is too restrictive in my mind. If they had included the “intent to mislead” then there could have been a lot more to consider.
120 days for the investigatory committee. I hope they contact McIntyre or that McIntyre contacts them directly.
purloined ?
Who wrote that one , Snaggle Puss?
We expected a whitewash. Instead we get a more gentle drawn out whitewash.
Time for an external investigation.
It’s worse than the fox guarding the hen house. It is the marks guarding their already squandered credibility.
Boy, all those anthropologists know a lot about statistics and scientific method. They feel so strongly about their conclusions.
Al Gore’s Brother (10:16:32) :
> Why isn’t Steve McIntyre on the committee?
For the some of the same reasons the murder victim isn’t on the jury.
Penn State ordered a truckload of whitewash???