From their own press release here
NOAA Scientific Integrity
“Scientific integrity is at the core of conducting ethical science. By being open and honest about our science, we build understanding and trust. I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring diligence, transparency, fairness, integrity, and accountability to the job.”
Dr. Jane Lubchenco,
NOAA Administrator
Science is the foundation of all NOAA does. NOAA’s weather forecasts and warnings, nautical charts, climate information, fishing regulations, coastal management recommendations, and satellites in the sky all depend on science. The quality of NOAA science is exemplary, and many of NOAA’s scientists are recognized as national and international experts in their fields.
NOAA has been working to develop a scientific integrity policy that would continue and enhance NOAA’s culture of transparency, integrity, and ethical behavior.
To this end, NOAA has embarked on a thoughtful and transparent effort to draft a policy to uphold the principles of scientific integrity contained in the President’s March 9, 2009 memorandum and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) director, John Holdren’s December 17, 2010 memorandum on scientific integrity.
In April, NOAA submitted a progress report to OSTP describing its progress on developing a scientific integrity policy and describing relevant policies currently in effect.
High resolution (Credit: Dave Partee/Alaska Sea Grant)
In February 2011, an early draft scientific integrity policy was shared with all of the agency’s employees for their review and comment. A revised draft taking into consideration comments received from NOAA employees and additional internal review is being prepared for release for public comment, and will be posted here once available.
===============================================================
I guess this means that Dr. Thomas Peterson of NCDC won’t be able to write ghost authored talking points against citizen scientists anymore?
Unfortunately, as far as I know, the public hasn’t been invited to comment on this new policy yet, which seems to me a key point for fostering integrity. However, I’ve located a copy of the draft (dated 3-30-2011), and you can read it here:
3_30_11_NOAA_Scientific_Integrity_draft (PDF)
I will give NOAA this much, they’ve stopped using this ridiculous slogan we’ve pointed out previously:
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
And replaced it with a more sensible one in recent press releases:
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.
So maybe they listen to us after all.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring diligence, transparency, fairness, integrity, and accountability to the job.”
=======================================================
So you’re just saying that prior to Feb 2011, this didn’t exist at NOAA….
…we already knew that
Let us know when it’s implemented….
Engineers subscribe to a strict code of ethics and there are disciplinary measures that can have an engineer suspended for violation of them. These are promulgated in Acts of Provincial Parliaments in Canada and I believe State Legislations in USA. Its time for scientists to be guided by similar enforceable codes.
NOAA was established in 1970.
In February 2011, an early draft scientific integrity policy was shared with all of the agency’s employees for their review and comment.
NOAA, lacking integrity for over 40 years. I guess in another few years they may have a ‘working paper’ rather than just a draft. Considering that they are part of the Department of Commerce does the fact that they do not actually have an integrity policy actually surprise anyone.
The Department of Commerce deals with Money, do you understand, they are not a scientific organization, they are a money organization.
Wow, they sound just like a four year old after they have been caught stealing candy. Lots of talk about how they will obey the rules, but my four year old knew that talk would not cut it. These guys seem to think all they need to do is talk and all will be forgiven. Not!
“Scientific integrity is at the core of conducting ethical science. By being open and honest about our science, we build understanding and trust. I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring diligence, transparency, fairness, integrity, and accountability to the job.”
As Hungarian peasants used to say in response to the standard communist greeting “Freedom!”: That’s what would be needed. And some rain.
(In a time when all their property was confiscated and he who has shown any resistance was taken at gunpoint by men wearing leather jackets, just before dawn, in a black car, never to return, nor to be heard about ever)
“So maybe they listen to us after all. ”
Maybe, and then there is that razor-sharp budget axe freshly ground.
Either way works for me.
What a sad commentary, not of NOAA, but of the responses thereto on this site.
Motivation for the directive (aimed at all scientific agencies in the federal govt, including NOAA, FDA, USDA and EPA) to implement an “integrity” policy was to prevent the political interference into the scientific process, as happened with the last administration rewriting scientific conclusions, especially as it relates to climate change.
It severely harms the credibility of skeptics to criticize efforts to protect scientific information and the people who create it from political interference. I’m sure the echo chamber on some web sites will cherry-pick in order to imply (or directly state) that these agencies lacked ‘integrity’ in the past, but the grown-ups in the room know better. Some anti-govt folks have been attacking the ‘integrity’ of certain agencies’ processes with respect to scientific inquiries, so the agencies transparently adopt an integrity policy and the same folks criticize the agencies for taking such a step. Intellectual dishonesty certainly does run rampant, but not within these agencies.
They probably mean Post-Normal Scientific Integrity anyway.
That other paragon of integrity, tenuous sticklers for academic rigour and absolute objectivity, are changing the goalposts again.
H/T The Bishop!
Perhaps, they know the new report is as ***p as their [undergraduate] most recent effort: the AR4.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the pudding model. We shall see.
page 9 Section Ten, under the heading Science, should that be deduction rather than induction?
More seriously, is this going to be the backing for a bigger push for authority. After all, now they’ve got integrity everyone!
Like Gandhi’s comment when asked what he thought of “Western civilization”.
He replied, “It would be a good idea”
It is interesting reading about a major climate science organisation and it is always interesting to read WUWT. However, despite the comments from those who post here, I think the “warmists” have won. The MSM doesn’t run much on alternative views of climate change concentrating its reporting on “the science”. Despite the furore “Climategate” engendered nothing really came of it and the various scientists involved have been cleared of any misdemeanors. Here in Australia the government’s Climate Change Commission has just released a report giving dire warnings of sea level rises, droughts, floods etc if CO2 levels are not cut by 2020. This has encouraged the government to progress “Carbon Tax” legislation. Thanks to WUWT and other sites for their efforts but I fear the sceptics have been vanquished
I really hate to be political, but while Obama is president, I don’t believe a word out of the mouth of any of his appointees!
The first question is, what policy is currently in effect for “scientific integrity” and has it been followed? Have things like the hockey stick come out of this “integrity”? Have freedom of information requests been illegally denied with this “integrity”? Has all testimony to congress and the administration been shown to be done with “integrity”? If we are just now getting around to “integrity”, then this must be a change. That would mean that formerly, there was no integrity. That would mean that they were lying to congress, the administration, and the American people before this. When they “get integrity”, will they prove it by making the appropriate arrests, since lying to Congress is a crime?
Second, who cares what wonderful promises of “integrity” come from this? I mean, the USSR had a constitution with wonderful promises of freedom, they simply ignored it, will this be ignored also? If it is, and further lack of integrity is shown, will efforts to document that be blocked with further secrecy and illegal blocking of the freedom of information act?
In otherwords, put your nmoney where your mouth is, let’s see some arrests.
“NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.”
How about replacing the last part with “And attempt to and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.”
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, now there’s a name we can all trust.
Jay Davis – Smart move . I don’t believe a word that comes out of the mouth of the One who appointed them either . If he gets reelected , we’re in serious trouble .
Well, that mission statement change is a positive. And, yes, several of us here advocated a change in wording very similar to the one they adopted. But then GMTA (Great Minds Think Alike). And I appreciate the effort.
But then I check to see if Serreze is still head of NSIDC, and. . . yeppers. Tho technically speaking, NOAA is just one of their largest “sponsors”, not actually their bosses.
So, anyway, WIP/Incomplete, but keep trying, folks.
The problem with those in government organisations given the burden of producing accurate scientific data and forecasts is very simply a consideration of this:
1. “I don’t want to lose my comfortable, well paid, job and pension”, and
2. What do my my political masters want/need so I can achieve the above?
Hence the cult of the Team and its members’ supposed belief in AGW – you have to think in terms of a war situation, when you have to have people who are really competent and not those who tell you that they are competent.
Unfortunately, NOAA would get an F in a wartime situation, as they can only say they are competent, but their motivation (as demonstrated above) is highly suspect.
Section 4.03 says,
All well and good, but there needs to be a ombudman who will resolve criticisms and complaints that don’t rise to the level of misconduct. Unacknowledged Photoshopped images are an example.
Section 5.01c says all staff will,
Seeing this actually implemented will go a long way in restoring some measure of trust in NOAA pronouncements.
NOAA Scientific Integrity
“Scientific integrity is at the core of conducting ethical science. By being open and honest about our science, we build understanding and trust. I pledged at the start of my tenure at NOAA to bring diligence, transparency, fairness, integrity, and accountability to the job.”
Dr. Jane Lubchenco,
NOAA Administrator
____________________________________________________________
How about a statement from Dr. Lubchenco explaining precisely why all this can’t be taken for granted?
Jay Davis says:
May 23, 2011 at 2:11 pm
I really hate to be political, but while Obama is president, I don’t believe a word out of the mouth of any of his appointees!
The transparency he promised, he hasn’t delivered, so why expect it from others.
Unfortunately, our main stream media promotes promises and ignores when they are not fulfilled.
NOAA’s changes appear good on paper. Promoting them will bolster support for NOAA. Whether they actually are enforced will probably not be noticed by any non-skeptics and the skeptics observations will continue to be ignored.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
NOAA strives for scientific integrity <– lol, when did they lose their "scientific integrity"?
They can start by firing James Hansen.