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.
Integrity as defined by the White House? Yeah right! Here’s something that may please some people here:
Riches to rags as Guardian bleeds £33m in a year
The Guardian, propped up by a car magazine, faces going out of print after warning of a cash crisis and the threat of more redundancies… …Andrew Miller, the chief executive of GNM’s parent company, Guardian Media Group (GMG), warned staff in a series of meetings this week that the group could run out of cash in three to five years if he does not make radical changes, which could include up to 175 redundancies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8583220/Riches-to-rags-as-Guardian-bleeds-33m-in-a-year.html
Being that we have a President pushing the AGW political agenda, and all his administration is firmly behind or driving that agenda; one has to ask what kind of science are they talking? Real science that ignores political tampering, or the one that created AGW?
Has the NOAA been getting guidance from the political community all along and if so has compliance with that guidance been rewarding?
The draft policy reads like an inflated performance report or maybe a confession. The first move if they have an integrity problem is to remove the problem or the standards will be meaningless.
It’s hard to read that list of what this policy includes without considering the fact that NOAA policy was missing these features before.
Roy UK says:
June 18, 2011 at 2:04 am
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.
Public comments for proposed rules/regs are posted here:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;cmd=06|15|11-08|15|11;rpp=10;po=0;s=noaa
Normally, the agency requests a docket number, and it’s posted at the above link where the public can read/write comments online. When the final rule (or draft, in this case) is finished, the agency addresses the credible comments and gives a reason why or why not the suggestion was followed. Sort of like public peer review.
Since all of the comments are going to an agency email address (integrity.noaa@noaa.gov), I suspect that the comments they don’t like won’t see the light of day.
If NOAA employs Hansen then I for one will not find any credibility in their publications.
Scientific Research Policy
1) All scientific inquiry shall be made based on scientific method and procedures that are disclosed to the public PRIOR to applying for funding wherein public funds will be used.
2) All Scientific Investigators will sign a legally binding OATH whereupon violating their OATH they submit to censure. Censure will include termination of present research involvement, inhibition to engage in further research, and repayment of public funds.
The signed oath with require:
That the investigator not lie,
That the investigator not conceal data,
That the investigator disclose political affiliations
That the investigator disclose POTENTIAL areas of conflict of interest
That the investigator archive ALL correspondences during an investigation and post them to public
Please suggest others
3) All data will be presented (including graphs) to boldly highlight calculated error and uncertainty.
4) All investigations will be based on falsifiable hypothesis.
5) Scientific Investigators NEVER communicate directly with News and Opinion broadcasting entities.
6) Scientific Investigators acknowledge that they are human and subject to all the foibles of being human and make specific efforts to avoid corruption of the Scientific Method due to their inherent weaknesses.
This would be a good start in my book. It also should not be necessary but based on the behavior of scientists (so-called) and politicians and news outlets who use their work, this kind of policy is necessary.
The milk-toast policy the NOAA proposes is pathetic.
One wonders why they feel the need to create this policy after decades of going without. Shouldn’t this have always been required?
The term smoke-screen comes to mind.
I asked them to change the following:
Replace:
“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.”
With:
“A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a *falsifiable* hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.”
You can empirically “test” non-falsifiable hypotheses all day long and not get anywhere.
Scientific integrity? At NOAA? How about this lack of integrity – For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.
That’s right NOAA you guys dropped Canada’s far north data sets from the North West Territories – all of the NWT is as large a land mass as all of the EU and parts of the middle east combined and we’ve only represented that land mass with ONE temperature reading? That’s not the kind of mistake that would be tolerated in a non government job – here in my work world the people who has that sloppy or deliberate work ethic would be fired on the spot. And you guys claim you want integrity? Then there’s the Russian weather data equally as messed up as the Canadian data – there is no integrity when the two largest and coldest land masses on planet earth in favor of more tropical temperatures are deliberately rigged directly because NOAA itself is corrupted by the pro AGW culprits besmirching a once respected institution.
The European Science Foundation (ESF) has published a Code of Conduct for Research and Integrity which makes interesting reading:
http://www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/research-integrity.html
This smells like science managed by politicians. It is amazing. Science does not prove anything it creates and falsifies hypothesis. Because of the short career and time relevancy horizon of politicians, scientific hypothesis are often taken as the truth.
The first thing NOAA needs to do is eliminate the position of chief propagandist, political scientist, and head salesman.
( in case you’re wondering, all three positions are currently held by James Hansen )
AlanG says:
June 18, 2011 at 6:03 am
The Guardian going down the economic tubes? Could not happen to a more deserving tribe of people. They truly earned all the suffering that is coming to them.
Wil,
Excellent comment. Here is an animation showing the rapid decline of temperature stations: click
The temperature records have to be rigged so one has an excuse to rig the energy market.
Hey guys. Your cynicism would rise beyond the level of rant if you actually submitted thoughtful comments and shared them with us.
“The policy contains the principles articulated in President Obama’s March 9, 2009, memorandum ..”
Would that be the same President Obama who fought the release of his birth certificate for two years, and then released one that seems to have been doctored? Is that the same President who claims to have killed Bin Laden, but disposed of the body before the identlty could be ascertained by independent sources. The same Obama who might not reveal his golf scores? Is that the kind of openess and transparency we should expect?
Doug Allen’s comment gets my vote for the most content-free post of the week.
Smokey
That’s an amazing video Smokey. Even I didn’t realize how corrupted NOAA had become BUT after viewing your video I’m stunned North America itself (plus the entire northern hemisphere) is so poorly represented. Moreover this video also shows how NOAA and East Anglia has gotten Global Warming and their hottest temperatures they post regularly to frighten the masses.
This is PR. Smoke and mirrors. NOAA gets it funding from money stolen at the point of a gun and doled out by corrupt politicians. It will continue to corrupt science to meet the agenda of its political masters.
“principles of scientific integrity contained in guidance from the White House”
Good luck with that.
kim says:
June 18, 2011 at 1:13 am
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.
=============================================================
Spot on Kim!! Holdren and Chu? If they are the ones to define integrity……then NOAA is doomed.
Further,
“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.” <——— Is that the same White House that received an award for trasparency behind locked doors with no press allowed? Uhumm yeh…..transparency….that’s the ticket!
Also, “States the key role of science in informing policy” Now, it isn’t entirely clear what this means, but I take it to mean they are to advise policy makers. If that is what the statement means, then they are wrong. I don’t want these people advising anybody that don’t know the difference between “could not reconcile” and “vindication”.
I want scientists to present facts, nothing else. If I wanted their opinion, I would have…….. :)…(lol, you guys can fill in the blank.) Their role is not advisory. Nor should it be. When a person spends their lives studying zebras, when they hear hoof beats, they will assume it is zebras. Its horses you loons!!
Some here wish there were better policing in this document. That would result in the fox guarding the hen house. The public’s job is to be ever vigilant. Don’t wish that job was taken from you.
Omission of data is considered falsification! That doesn’t leave much on the Pro-AGW shelf does it?