Royal Society Bemoans Freedom of Scientific Information
This is a collection of articles related to the In an interview with the Guardian by Sir Paul Nurse of the Royal Society that in connection with FOI:
I have been told of some researchers who are getting lots of requests for, among other things, all drafts of scientific papers prior to their publication in journals, with annotations, explaining why changes were made between successive versions. If it is true, it will consume a huge amount of time. And it’s intimidating
For the record, I personally have never submitted an FOI request to any UK organization. The Bishop Hill article linked below shows the depth of known claims.
Here’s the reactions:
Freedom of information laws are being misused to harass scientists and should be re-examined by the government, according to the president of the Royal Society. Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse told the Guardian that some climate scientists were being targeted by organised campaigns of requests for data and other research materials, aimed at intimidating them and slowing down research. He said the behaviour was turning freedom of information laws into a way to intimidate some scientists. -– Alok Jha, The Guardian, 25 May 2011
It’s rather as if the science has taken a leave of absence from the Royal Society and only the scientists remain. -–Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 26 May 2011
The solution to Sir Paul’s problem is simple: If academics do not like the scrutiny that comes with being paid by the taxpayers, they should stop accepting public money. –Richard Tol, 26 May 2011
Bob Ward says that the intention is to trawl through scientists work and find errors. He obviously doesn’t like the idea. There is a name for the process of looking for errors in someone else’s work. It’s called science, —WardRe, 26 May 2011
Dear Climatologists: It is very simple. My taxes have been used to pay you to collect data on my behalf. If you do not feel able to allow me access to that data, I feel no need to continue paying you. What you do on your own time is yours. But what you do on my dime is mine. Simple. —Joe Sixpack, 26 May 2011
The problem with the tactic of denying information and protesting is that no-one believes it any more. So it makes the communication and sales problem worse and worse. The general public concludes that there must be something wrong or they would release it all. What this is doing, its producing ever more skepticism about AGW and climate science. You cannot get there from here. The only solution is to publish the lot, immediately. It then might be that all kinds of holes will emerge. But trying to keep it all secret is not going to work either. You cannot avoid the conclusion that climate science is really in crisis. It is destroying itself as a credible discipline by the public conduct of its most aggressive advocates. —Michel, 26 May 2011
Barack Obama has snubbed Britain’s most eminent scientists by refusing to attend a Royal Society banquet in his honour at which he was to be awarded with a prestigious medal. The US President rejected the invitation from the world-leading group of scientists and instead chose to visit a south London state school. Sources close to the state visit said members of the Royal Society were “deeply offended” by the snub and had accused Mr Obama of being obsessed with his “street cred”. –Heidi Blake, The Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2011
I want to look at what they’ve given us and examine what they’ve withheld and see why it’s been withheld. The more they stonewall, the more they’re making Richard Nixon look like a choirboy. — Robert G. Marshall, The Washington Times, 25 May 2011
I haven’t heard of any incidents in which anyone requested “drafts of scientific papers prior to their publication in journals, with annotations, explaining why changes were made between successive version”, let alone “lots of requests” of this nature to multiple scientists.
Are any readers aware of any such requests? Or is this more fantasizing by climate scientists? Like the time reversal mechanism assumed by Nature when they blamed data obstruction by climate scientists back in 2005 on FOI requests in summer 2009. –Is this a Nursery Story? Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit
Is this a Nursery Story?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would say it would be hard to ask for information on something you do not know exists. But I guess there may be some Svengalis out there. I would like to hear about them as well since I really want to know who is going to win the World Series this year.
Well,
follow steve mcIntyre’s lead and write to the royal society asking Nurse for details.
Have they no shame?
My university was asked to provide written justification for every choice of required textbooks. Departments chairs from every department had to compile lists explaining each textbook choice. It took weeks. It was insane.
Send him a foi requesting all the investigatory work he did and all the evidence he has used to produce this statement and I bet that just like 75% of climate science, it was made up on the spot as he just needed some way to excuse the lack of evidence to back up the results
Bravo Richard Tol; bravo President Obama (in the order they appear above)!
The Royal Society (and many others of similar ilk) deserve all the opprobrium they can get.
Sounds like somebody needs to issue a FOIA request for details on what is actually being requested in FOIA requests.
Or just replace the broken FOIA system with a transparency system for publicly funded research. It really is as simple as that – put everything that public servants do into public view and there will be no need to ever deal with another pesky information request again.
Go Ahead, take away our FOIA rights. Make my day. An act of such flagrant dishonesty, even in England, will play on American TV for the indefinite future. It is just what we need to end the funding of all climate science and put people like Hansen on the street where they belong. Go ahead, do it.
The Royal Society of Buffoons
steven mosher says:
May 26, 2011 at 9:19 am
Well,
follow steve mcIntyre’s lead and write to the royal society asking Nurse for details.
================================================
It will be interesting to see if Steve Mac gets a response. Personally, I think it is simply another hand-waving contrivance, created to smear skeptics. Though, disproving it would be impossible. Maybe Steve’s right and they got back in their time machine and went forward a few years and had such a request………
Could it be that they are trying to hide how little they accomplish with the public money.
Nursius in verba.
Awww! Now you’ve done it, Mosh! New rumour: “WUWT commentators encourage each other to harass president of RS with requests for data”
You just know that’s going to be the next back-room story mill. They don’t care if it’s true or not, only if the sh*t will stick for a day or 2.
I suspect the draft was IPCC reviewer comments and exchanges.
Irony.
How many FOIs will be submitted to find out how many FOIs were requested???
A Nursery Story
Once upon a time a man named ‘Nurse’
Got lots of money from the public purse.
His friends at the UEA
Were also in the public’s pay.
They studied snow and heat and rain
And found themselves on the gravy train.
They made lots of dosh by misinforming
People about global warming.
And became upset by Freedom of Information
Especially the subsequent vilification.
Not just in England but worldwide
And all because of carbon dioxide.
In the USA, government agency responses to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are limited to final documents. Raw data & finished works are subject to disclosure. Drafts, working papers, etc. are exempt. For decades (at least the last three & counting to my experience & involvement) nobody complained about that, if ever.
The idea that drafts and other working papers should be subject to such requests is ridiculous. Stupid really.
Working papers & drafts normally contain topical placeholders (incompletely described topics to be filled in later), poorly worded presentations (to get the thoughts down for later editorial polishing), etc. Such content is often misleading and/or erroneous/factually wrong — and recognized as such by the author(s) who do not mean what a literal interpretation would convey, or which they later discover after closer review of third-party references they didn’t initially review that closely. Anybody that’s written a thesis or even term paper, where sections are routinely re-written multiple times, should recognize this.
And one more:
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/foi-requests-shouldnt-be-needed-in-the-first-place/
What happened to science and scientists that used to be proud of their work…
…and published all the details
If you stand by your work, you want to show it all.
This is science, not a patent for something that stands to make money.
(that was a joke)
When I was in school, all my professors required me to show my work, and I was paying them. I’m still paying them.
I think it’s only fair that they show their work.
For supposedly clever people, they don’t seem to be capable of much reasoning.
If you’re a famous actor but don’t like photographers bothering you when you dine at fashionable restaurants, avoid fashionable restaurants, and if photographers are always trying to take a snap of you semi-naked because such photographs bring high prices, undercut the market by releasing many candid snaps on your own website.
Similarly, if people bother you with requests for your data and previous drafts of papers, put such information on your own website (with confidential data suitably redacted, of course), and respond to those annoying inquirers with a standard e-mail directing them to the site.
If you’re a scientist opposing the releasing of data, or an actor opposed to the trappings of modern fame, consider another line of business. If you don’t like the fumes, stay out of the laboratory.
Ken says:
“The idea that drafts and other working papers should be subject to such requests is ridiculous. Stupid really.”
Not really. If a taxpaying citizen had been aware of the Climategate emails before they were leaked, are you saying they should be exempt from review by the public that paid for them? That would be tantamount to condoning wrongdoing.
If someone is being paid by the public, then their work product is the property of the public. All of it. If they don’t like it they can get a job in the private sector.
As nurses in the UK’s national health service (NHS) fail in their duty of care to it’s patients. Nurse fails in his duty of care in preventing climate science killing the credibility of the Royal society
I’m a published astronomer. All the raw data used in my published papers is stored, as is the reduced data. Any request from a colleague would probably be granted; if every amateur astronomer wanted a copy of something, it could probably be put on line but I don’t have the time to deal with every nut that sees little green men in my data. Besides, for the two instruments I have used over the years, it took years to develop data reduction code. I’m not going to show everybody how to use it.
On the other hand climate science has been taken out of the hands of climate scientists so that it is very hard for the usually processes that manage to get at the truth to do so. I think people should do what I do: Try not to put too much CO2 into the atmosphere: whether or not it has been affecting global climate, it can and it will; and two watch the numbers. The truth will out. Climate scientists, on the other hand, whether by their own fault or not, have gotten themselves in this unenviable position, and it behooves them to get themselves out by being very transparent; being clear about what models can actually predict; and speaking out loudly when ridiculous claims are made by others from their own benefit.
Simple solution – just post the information on the internet. No FOI would be needed if the data were available.