A while back, I highlighted this, and now comments are open to the public and I’m sure there will be many readers who would like to contribute.
NOAA seeks public comments on scientific integrity policy
June 16, 2011
NOAA’s draft scientific integrity policy is available for public review and comment until Aug. 15, 2011. The policy incorporates the principles of scientific integrity contained in guidance from the White House, and addresses how NOAA ensures quality science in its practices and policies and promotes a culture of transparency, integrity and ethical behavior.
“Scientific integrity is at the core of producing and using good science,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “By being open and honest about our science, we build understanding and trust. This policy reflects the commitment I made when I first came to NOAA to strengthen science, ensure it is not misused or undermined, and base decisions on good science. This scientific integrity policy is about fostering an environment where science is encouraged, nurtured, respected, rewarded and protected.”
At the beginning of Lubchenco’s tenure, NOAA embarked on a thoughtful and transparent effort to draft a policy to uphold the principles of scientific integrity. The policy contains the principles articulated in President Obama’s March 9, 2009, memorandum and further guidance provided in White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director John Holdren’s Dec. 17, 2010, memorandum on scientific integrity. The policy responds to Holdren’s directive to agencies to submit their draft policies to OSTP by early August.
NOAA’s draft policy:
- Lays out formal guidance with a “Code of Conduct”
- Creates the conditions for enabling first-rate science and guarding against attempts to undermine, discredit or change it
- States the key role of science in informing policy
- Encourages scientists to publish data and findings to advance science, their careers and NOAA’s reputation for reliable science
- Encourages NOAA scientists to be leaders in the scientific community
- Provides whistle-blower protection
- Applies to all NOAA employees and provides applicable policies for contractors and grantees who conduct, supervise, assess and/or interpret scientific information for the use of NOAA, the Department of Commerce and the nation
- Includes a training component.
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. In February 2011, an early draft scientific integrity policy was shared with all of the agency’s employees for their review and comment. The draft announced today takes those comments into consideration.
NOAA also seeks comments on the accompanying handbook that outlines procedures to respond to allegations of misconduct. Both draft documents can be found electronically at www.noaa.gov/scientificintegrity.
Those without computer access can call 301-734-1186 to request a copy of the draft policy and handbook and instructions for returning written comments via mail by Aug. 15.
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. Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.
==================================================================
It seems they left out this important paragraph from the press release above, burying it in a link, so I’ll helpfully provide it for you:
Please send your feedback to integrity.noaa@noaa.gov either in an email or a MS Word document by August 15, 2011. Please include a reference to the section, sub-section, and paragraph when providing comments on specific language in the draft documents.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The old phrase, ‘you can’t polish a turd’, springs to mind.
Kudos to NOAA for wanting a scientific integrity policy. What took them so long?
Sorry, cheap shot…I couldn’t resist.
NOAA of course does excellent work and is full of intelligent people, many of whom are skeptical about the Global Warming Scare. In fact when I’m lucky enough to have a computer nearby I often use data and graphs from NOAA to help me argue my skeptical position.
I suspect like there’s a ‘political wing’ of NOAA high level admin who control the ‘official output’ of the agency. And they are singing directly from the hymnsheet. It is they are the problem.
I once had an almost tearful row with an aquaintance who insisted the Arctic was melting…like immediately.
I still remember the look on her face as she watched this…. over and over…..
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/animations/halfsize_20030928-20040510.avi
She could see with her own eyes the way the currents pushed the ice around, the way a photograph of a particular stretch of coast could be solid ice one day and ice free to the horizon a few months later….she could the ice streams not ‘melting’ but exiting the arctic ocean along the western coast of Greenland and although she didn’t back down on the argument some of that disgusting fear they exploit, left her.
I’d love to see the rest of the sequence up to 2010/11…anyone know how I could get it?
All I want are the facts. I don’t want slanted results just the raw unadulterated data. Let those scientists out there who care about science come up with what it means. No more advocacy. Then they should invite Hansen over for a run through on how it’s done.
I’ve asked Chris Moody when he’s going to write ‘The Democrats’ War on Science’.
=====================
er, uh Mooney. Though I often hesitate to correct slips like that.
With Holdren and Chu as his picks, we need to worry about scientific integrity after integrity in general.
===================
I wonder if we get to see what people suggest. I am sure a few people here will make some good suggestions, and will probably post them here, but a few other sites will have commenters who will not make their suggestions public.
Is there anywhere there where it states that Hansen is to go?
If integrity is their desire then that is the first step.
“Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought. It would be very hard to adapt to that kind of climate.”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It is all very well to suggest such a possibility, but an AGW protagonist needs to explain by what process increased levels of CO2 bring about such variability
What is their policy on AGW?
Why do they have a policy on AGW, if they are supposed to be an outfit linked with science rather than politics?
Their system, their administration, has already failed catastrophically, but they admit nothing, show no responsibility. I have no intention of making suggestions to them, of playing by their latest rules — their making the rules is what is wrong. I want them run out of their positions as incompetent scientists and political frauds. (I don’t expect it; but I want it.) This little exercise in closing the barn door after the horses have all run out, also known as “cover your rear end”, is obscene, and is just par for the course for those in essentially political (or elitist “upper management”) positions. As someone else has posted more than once, “time for torches and pitchforks”. The rot is too far advanced for papering over.
The rot is too far advanced for papering over.
Creates the conditions for enabling first-rate science and guarding against attempts to undermine, discredit or change it
So someone obviously believes that the science is settled then.
The second half of this phrase brings the medeival church to mind…
“■Creates the conditions for enabling first-rate science and guarding against attempts to undermine, discredit or change it.”
charles nelson @ur momisugly June 18, 2011 at 12:09 am
“The old phrase, “you can’t polish a turd’, springs to mind.”
A gastronomic variation of which is Delingpole’s Dog S*** Yoghurt Fallacy.
“Even if just the smallest, smidgen of a fraction of dog poo were to go into that yoghurt it would still be irredeemably tainted.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100087415/climate-change-an-emetic-fallacy/
Irrelevant. These written policies only make certain kinds of lawsuits more difficult. You can be sued for not having a policy, but it’s much harder to sue an agency for inadequately enforcing its policy.
Apparently this is only a revision of a policy that has been in place since 1990, and they haven’t used the existing policy about “conflicts of interest” to fire Hansen. That tells you all you need to know about the power and usefulness of the policy.
It sounds kind of like socialism – great in theory, except for the fact it doesn’t work in practice..
It is self-evident that asking those, who are compromised by considerations of comfortable salaries and grants, to police themselves, is simply not going to work. The Augean stable needs to be regularly cleaned out and new people installed. It is exactly the same with governments – if you have the same party in power for more than 10 years and inevitably ‘the old pals’ act’ will start running rampant creating stagnation, nepotism, incompetence and corruption.
The cosy, old pals’ club of ‘climate scientists’ needs to be dismantled, or this unchallenged AGW nonsense will continue unabated.
charles nelson says:
June 18, 2011 at 12:09 am
“The old phrase, ‘you can’t polish a turd’, springs to mind.”
Not that it’s relevant to anything, but see
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polishing-a-turd.html
Where’s the beef: personal financial disclosure statements, oci statements, data and source code archival policies, , etc.?
From NOAA working draft.
“Scientific Method
A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.”
The redefining of “Scientific Method here is astounding. Read the first sentence and think of CAGW. So first you define something as a problem!!
Then you follow a shortcut version of the scientific method, after you have already defined something as a “problem” .
John Marshall, Hansen is NASA – incredible tough it may seem. That venerable organization is also in need of some integrity or purpose; currently it is just a political
As early as the 2nd sentence
“The policy incorporates the principles of scientific integrity contained in guidance from the White House,…”
and they lost me. The last thing anyone needs is politicians advising them on ethics.
From the working draft
“All NOAA employees and contractors identified in Section 2.01, will to the best of their ability exhibit
Accountability in the conduct of research and interpretation of research results through:
• Using resources entrusted to them responsibly, including equipment, funds, and employees’ time.
“• Disclosing all research methods used, available data, and final reports and publications consistent with applicable scientific standards, laws, and policy.”
Overall the document is vague, and a loop hole like “to the best of their ability…” Is unacceptable. The reality is that any research which involves political policy must allow complete open source access to all data and meta data, including notes and other unpublished results. All e-mail, on employer equipment and or time, must be available for FOI request. Finally, equal FUNDING must be given to skeptical qualified scientists to publicly peer review the scientific papers that involve policy, and further produce papers of their own. The skeptical community is now developed so that it is capable of selecting its own, publicly funded scientist to produce such work. This must be done before a paper can be used in policy issues.
I sarcastically posted in a thread on the solar news that government regulation of science would be the result of such contradictory news. The sarcasm included the observation that science was too inconsistent to for “the government planning that science exists to support.” Note: The draft states that the key role of science is to inform policy. Sounds like the NOAA is going to be another IPCC whether it means to or not.
The government should discipline and regulate its activities. Ownership (de facto or de jure) of science by the government makes science impossible. Not to encourage them, but would there be a ban on activism where scientists cannot be both scientist and activist. (Yes, I’m thinking of Hansen, the Offender.)
I also sarcastically referred to the government having a website so that the public could comment on what “scientific justice” (ala the EPA’s environmental justice) meant to them. Criminy!
Looks like a well-greased slope to me, girls and boys.
Damn, my irony meter pegged and then sprung apart like a cartoon pocketwatch. You should have warned us up front that there was going to be a quote from Lubchenco on integrity. At least my laptop seems to be OK.
Turd polishing indeed.