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.
One reason why climate science should be very open with their data is because:
a) Climategate emails showed some very unscientific behaviour.
b) Governments intend to use climate science / IPCC to impose large taxes of co2.
Anything short of a good deal of openeness will be met with suspicion and distrust, whether rightly or wrongly.
We tend to think that throughout history scientists openly shared their data with others because they were ideal scientists focused solely on the scientific method. I bet that’s baloney. I bet scientists, being humans, have always hidden data from critics as best they could in order to boost their own prestige and obtain more funding. In the age of the internet and outrageously politicized government funding, it’s just harder for them to get away with it. I think the difference is a matter of degree. The more government flows into science, the more it corrupts scientists.
oMan says:
May 26, 2011 at 10:21 am
“So Sir Nurse’s complaint is: “I have been told…”
Thanks for taking time to parse that out.
1) Exaggeration
2) Groundless assertion
The dual bane of the climate debate.
The thing that has always amazed me is, that if AGW is the most important thing ever , and there is no time waste on this and its has evidenced which is absolute in proof of the idea , as is claimed . That climate scientists are not kicking peoples doors down to thrust ever piece of evidenced in their face, but rather they playing smoke and mirror games to keep the majority of the stuff off the record.
Anyone thing that in some way the evidenced is not as absolute has claimed?
For the record , Phil Jones played to avoid FOI request BEFORE he even got any , how hassle from FOI requests could lead to this is a very good question.
James Sexton says:
May 26, 2011 at 10:44 am
Beyond that, CO2 is plant food. I like fat and happy plants. More CO2 is better, not worse.
There exist versioning programs that automatically record every revision made to a document. It is possible to recover any individual version, request a display of changes between any two selected versions, etc.
This stuff is SOP in the software industry and has been for decades.
Ken says:
“The idea that drafts and other working papers should be subject to such requests is ridiculous. Stupid really.”
“Hide the decline” was not in a final report, was it now? Not subject to FOIA.
And yet it may be the most important phrase in the whole controversy.
Anyway, the RS seems to have become a bunch of sycophantic toadies, bent on defending their turf in the status quo.
Interesting to note that the one place where you couldn’t comment on the article was…The Guardian!
“Beyond that, CO2 is plant food. I like fat and happy plants. More CO2 is better, not worse.”
Oh dear, MarkW, you have done it now. Don’t you realise there is a war on obesity? Another excuse for them to reduce CO2.
The frantic actions and words of the AGW community since Climategate make complete sense, but only if viewed as an ongoing effort to stay out of jail. “Stonewall, obfuscate, tap dance, but do not let the truth be known, for that will kill us.”
“douglas brenner says:
May 26, 2011 at 10:07 am
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.”
It should be noted that when you work for a company that pays your way, any derivitive products and methods that you come up with belong to the company.
The same should apply to Government funding of science. Since the taxpayer pays for the salary, the taxpayer in trust of the Government should own the methods you use. This is one of the principles of the FOIA. You see, if you are paid by the taxpayer you should not be able to keep derivitive works, it belongs to the Government and you should be required to publish as much as the people want. If we pay your salary, you should publish to my content. There is no such thing in this regard to “too many FOIA requests.”
If you don’t like taxpayers being your boss, you are perfectly free to find a job in either another field or with a company that does not have such requirements.
That is the rub of deciding to work for the tax-payer…you are subjected to our will and perhaps to our whim when we decide to cut funding to purchase other things.
Now to analyze your statement for a scientific point of view, if your method has merit, then being open will advance the world scientifically. By closing it off, you do nothing but make us question whether your method is any good or not. Maybe its terrible and by using this method you are throwing away more good data then bad…but if you are the only person to look at the data selection and the only one to data mine said data, who is to say your method is any good at all? This is why replication is so important in science because it allows other people with different backgrounds to find holes in your thinking and even if they just find issues with your methods, you can go back and fix those issues. This is how science SHOULD work, but because people close themselves off such as yourself, we have issues in science where no one knows how to replicate anything anymore.
“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.”
How much less CO2 should we emit? I by no means have an issue with that statement, but here you speak out about a topic where you do not even try to quantify the statement. What is the actual cost of CO2 that we should apply to people? That is the issue….no one in this debate actually thinks emitting more CO2 is a good thing, but most sceptics such as myself see CO2 as plant food and if you are going to tax it, you better have damn good data to support such an idea.
This is the problem…Governments are forced to quantify the cost of CO2 and the science can not do this for a number of reasons including the fact that most of the data is hidden, out of reach and otherwise impossible to obtain, so that the only people who CAN get the data are people who are invested in taxing the heck out of CO2. This leads to a conflict of interest…which you state is one of the issues with climate science (I can not say I disagree with this…)
But the main issue still stands…they got themselves into this mess….they refuse to fix the mess, and want to carry on like its business as usual.
Its not up to them anymore to get themselves out of this mess…its everyone else’s jobs now because they couldn’t be honest for just one second. Now they will have to be thrown out and rather harshly.
I know for one I tend to be rather outspoken about this. This is because I gave up long ago about being polite and otherwise nice. Now I fight at their level regardless of how low they go. I will fight just as dirty, but I will win. The sceptic movement will also likewise win not because of me maybe, but because the truth always comes out eventually, the only question is when.
I do my best to make sure that when is sooner rather then later.
Let me tell you something else, as a fellow scientist, it really depresses me to see any scientist wanting to surpress any kind of data. I don’t care how much time it takes scientists to devulge their information, data and methods. It needs to all be out there. We the people are paying for this, right?
Maybe they could use one of these new fancy computer thingies to just post their research publicly on that new fangled “internet” that Al Gore invented…and be done with it???
I would like to see these scientists work in a company with ISO 9000 certification. Oh the whining that would ensue…
From Jimbo on May 26, 2011 at 11:46 am:
Yet as is increasingly seen in movies and even commercials, computer models can generate very realistic-looking smoke. It sure looks real, can easily be believed to be real, yet has no existence in actual reality.
😉
At the risk of sounding trite, I’m reminded of one of the insightful passages from Eisenhower’s Farewell Address as U.S. President (1961):
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”.
In October 2010, it was reported that The Royal Society revised their “Guide to the Science of Climate Change”… …in response to pressure from 43 fellows who argued the society had gone too far. (in various forms of exaggeration, like understating uncertainties etc)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/top-science-body-cools-on-global-warming/story-e6frg6nf-1225933012675
A revolt by 43 fellows eh; not many I suppose, but I imagine there could be a whole bunch that would like to see Nurse fall off his perch.
Irony abounds and the endarkened bronze age threatens to return. Obviously Sir Paul Maxime Nurse, FRS, has forgotten the motto of the Royal Society: “Nullis in verba. Take no one’s word for it.” As such Sir Paul Maxime Nurse, FRS, needs to take remedial courses in the philosophy of science and in particular in the scientific method. The whole point of the Royal Society is to ASK for the evidence since no one can be trusted!!!
“Nullius in verba (Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it”) is the motto of the Royal Society, that signifies the founders’ determination to establish facts via experiments and profess objective science ignoring the influence of politics or religion.
It comes from Horace’s Epistles, where he compares himself to a gladiator who, having retired, is free from any master’s control.
These words in the original context: “Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes.” (“I am not bound over to swear allegiance to any master; where the storm drives me I turn in for shelter.”)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
““Nullius in verba”, which is the Latin motto of the Royal Society of London, the UK’s national academy of science, means literally :”On the words of no one” , as NULLIUS(genitive case) corresponds to ‘of no one’ and IN VERBA to ‘on the words’.
In fact the motto of the Royal society points out that we must believe in the words of nobody, but we have to use science to establish “the truth of scientific matters through experiment rather than through citation of authority”.”
So Sir Paul Maxime Nurse, FRS, certainly needs to sign up for remedial courses in the philosophy of science and in particular the scientific method, not to mention he needs to abide by the Motto of the Royal Society, or presumably be ejected from it.
My response to all (climate) scientists complaining about being asked to “show and justify your work”: If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen, and if you can’t stand skepticism about your methodology, assumptions, and analyses get out of science — go into religion.
Latitude says:
May 26, 2011 at 9:57 am …
This is science, not a patent for something that stands to make money.
(that was a joke)
_______________________________________________________
Funny you should bring up patents considering a patent application discloses the thing being patented.
Carry on.
Some time in the 1960’s the Royal Society changed its focus. The old rule was pretty good:
It is likewise necessary on this occasion to remark, that it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always adhere, never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject, either of Nature or Art, that comes before them. And therefore the thanks, which are frequently proposed from the Chair, to be given to the authors of such papers as are read at their accustomed meetings, or to the persons through whose hands they received them, are to be considered in no other light than as a matter of civility, in return for the respect shown to the Society by those communications. The like also is to be said with regard to the several projects, inventions, and curiosities of various kinds, which are often exhibited to the Society; the authors whereof, or those who exhibit them, frequently take the liberty to report and even to certify in the public newspapers, that they have met with the highest applause and approbation. And therefore it is hoped that no regard will hereafter be paid to such reports and public notices; which in some instances have been too lightly credited, to the dishonour of the Society. [Motto: Nullius in Verba – On the word of no one.]
By giving opinions as a body they have forfeited science and have become a political organ; a QUANGO.
The President of the Royal Society Wants Scientists To Abandon The Scientific Method
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2011/05/26/the-president-of-the-royal-society-wants-scientists-to-abandon-the-scientific-method/
“Here’s the reactions: ”
Should be “Here are the reactions:” It’s just as easy to get it right, isn’t it?
Mike says:
May 26, 2011 at 9:29 am
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.
===========================================================
In New Zealand at least, the person making the request would have to pay for the time taken, at full rates. Freedom of Information does not imply free information.
If the person wanted the textbooks rationalised that badly they would pay many thousands of dollars, then the information was worth getting. With no way to verify your story, I suspect the information was actually requested by someone who did not have to pay – another government organisation perhaps. I know that in my own life getting such information that the equivalents were when a Member of Parliament requested the information: sometimes one has to pay the price for being a democracy and allowing the actual rulers to see the decisions made.
Moreover, at least in New Zealand, the information in documents or electronically stored had to be provided. It did not have to be explained. You could request drafts that were circulated to others (but not personal drafts, as they clearly were not a finished document). However, other than giving a date or chronology no further explanation was required.
I strongly doubt that anyone in Britain would be required to provide the documents “with annotations, explaining why changes were made”. That is not providing information, it is creating it. It might be requested, but it would not need to be supplied.
I don’t think it’s so simple.
You pay a mechanic to fix your car, but you don’t automatically have the right thereby to stand over him, question his every move and make him put down in writing why he made judgements about, changing brake pads. If you did this it would make the service take 3 times as long and cost 3 times as much. You might not get a better service ( thinks….those pads could do with changing cos I know you’re going on a track day soon soon and they probably won’t last, but I can’t be bothered to write all that down and it’s easier to justify not changing them by ticking the > X mm thick box on the standard service form…….)
I agree that the lack of trust has led to more scrutiny, but this is probably more to do with the fact that the peer review process has come into disrepute and perhaps FoI requests should focus on this, rather than making life unreasonably hard for researchers.