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.
My corresondence to NOAA:
This document about NOAA’s commitment to scientific integrity is strange, surreal, a sort of icing on a dried up, moldy, stinking cake.
More than ignoring scientific integrity, NOAA eschews it.
Your family of websites are a melange of pr all having the goal of inciting public hysteria. I was especially disappointed in your newest: Climate.gov
Your attempts to undermine Anthony Watts and his army of SurfaceStation.org monitors, to ignore the thoughtful insights of Judith Curry and so much more speak to your denial of genuine science. One day in the not too distant future, NOAA will be the centerpiece of scientific shame.
It’s not too late to change, however, to fight and reject your tendencies to a Dr. Strangelovian reflex. The agency has a lot of clean-up to do, however, as I’m sure that most of your “scientists” steeped in the tea of AGW have really come to believe it: they are beyond hope. Lock them in a closet and recruit some genuine thinking scientists – in an array of disciplines – committed to the highest standards in research. Avoid everyone with a degree in “climate science.” What is that, “climate science?” It’s a nouveau pseudo-science committed to intimidating the intellectually vulnerable, a discipline on a par with an advanced degree in education, with a specialty in basket weaving.
I offered to assist with the evolution of Climate.gov to an interactive website of genuine value (as I had done for NOAA many years earlier). Of all the people with whom I spoke, their united focus was a hatred of Anthony Watts; over and over I heard about his intrusion into “their” world and the indigestion he causes.
I just looked at Climate.gov; it hasn’t gotten any better.
In NOAA’s defense, it is not the only agency screaming, in effect, for the creation of a new “commodity” to enrich Al Gore, his minions, and GoldmanSachs with billions of new-found wealth. In NOAA’s non-defense, it is the leader of the pack.
Please share my correspondence with members of Congress. Feel free to contact me for further information and know that I, and many others, would be pleased to help NOAA turn over a new leaf.
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,
I did it this morning, but if you want to see it here it is:
http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/my-submission-to-noaa-integrity-review/
One Shall Not Homogenize Data
Well I guess science can guild policy, but that is a dangerous place to tread. There are far too many ways that can turn into policy driving science. One of the easiest ways is in the selection of what to study. The mere decision study one thing and not something else can be political. Stating that science can drive policy can give the impression that policy ought to be a consideration of science, it shouldn’t be. I can’t help thinking that policy might have been behind the NOAA model of the BP oil spill that showed it going all the way to North Carolina and beyond.
NOAA’s eventual Scientific Integrity Policy will be meaningless, so long as the same top-level management is in place at NOAA that allowed the past and current non-Integrity to occur and continue. For NOAA to achieve Integrity will require a change in management, and follow-on purge of subordinates.
Not to pick on NOAA …
NASA’s (yet to be proposed) Integrity Policy will be meaningless, so long as the same top-level management is in place at NASA that allowed the past and current non-Integrity to occur and continue. For NASA to achieve Integrity will require a change in management, and follow-on purge of subordinates.
There is no governmental agency, regulatory or other, that has not been completely compromised from the top down. Use this video, a well sourced documentary about Dr. Burzinski, MD, PhD and you will gain insight the widespread abuse of power. It’s too bad A.W. didn’t have this information to educate himself and his spouse. This movie will be up on the internet until June 20th as it was held over due to intense interest.
“Proof yet again that the lunatics have definitely taken over the asylum.”
(Give this documentary 10 minutes and then decide if it’s worth a watch.)
Lady in Red says:
June 18, 2011 at 9:01 am
My corresondence to NOAA: ……….
=================================
A beautifully wondrous job!!
Really…
Ethics guidance from the current white house regime? They can’t be serious…That’s just too funny…
Obama giving guidance on ethics is like getting instructions on how to build a henhouse from the weasel…
Virginity lessons from a prostitute….Diet tips from the world’s fattest man….Lessons on Jewish history and culture from Adolf himself…
Or Deficit and Debt reduction guidance from….well…the current pResident, the one who has run up bigger deficits faster than all other Presidents combined.
Too rich.
Doug Allen says:
June 18, 2011 at 8:19 am
Hey guys. Your cynicism would rise beyond the level of rant if you actually submitted thoughtful comments and shared them with us.
==============================================================
The cynicism is justified. The ranting is what you’d expect from people that money was taken from to finance a political ideology. People that don’t know the difference between the words, “can not reconcile” and “vindication” are probably not the best people to start blathering about “first-rate science and guarding against attempts to undermine, discredit or change it” And, it doesn’t pass notice how that statement may be interpreted.
It could be that many there had an epiphany, prompted by Chu and Holdren……… but then that implies an epiphanatic event by those two. So, yes, some may be a bit skeptical about the sincerity of this. As LIR state, their website screams political advocacy. Now, that’s not to say all NOAA employees are of the same ilk, there are some very sincere researchers there. So, I propose this. The NOAA that exists today, should remain in existence, only as a NGO, on par with Green Peace, the Sierra Club and what not. (Hey, its partially working for the IPCC!) That way, they don’t have to be ashamed or attempt to dismiss their advocacy. The people there, that actually wish to conduct science should stay and we can name it something like the Real Scientific NOAA.
Smokey says: “Doug Allen’s comment gets my vote for the most content-free post of the week.”
Unfortunately, Smokey, Doug is 100% correct. Ill-informed (“Hansen must go…”), knee-jerk (“…smoke-screen comes to mind”) rants here aren’t worth diddley squat. If anyone wants to have an effect, respond politely in the manner indicated. There is plenty of scope for good, honest suggestions. For example, I see nothing in the draft policy addressing evasion of FOI requests.
For another example: “Neither unfairly hindering the scientific activities of others nor engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, coercive manipulation, or other scientific or research misconduct.” This implies that fairly hindering others is perfectly okay. Is this a veiled reference to peer review?
It is very interesting in the draft you linked above to look up the definition of “science” (middle of page 4) and then “scientific method” (top of page 5). Here they are below:
Science- Knowledge obtained and tested through use of the scientific method. Science may also include the observation and classification of facts with the goal of establishing verifiable knowledge derived through induction and hypothesis.
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.
From these definitions I think it is safe to conclude that most “climate science” is not science at all, or at least won’t be in the NOAA’s eyes if this section of the draft makes it into the final version unrevised. Essentially any part of climate science that does not empirically test a hypothesis but instead uses models for verification would not be considered “science”. It makes you wonder who is really “anti-science” around here.
“guard against” … “undermine, discredit or change it”
This is not science. It is policy version of their previous behaviour.
Science is at risk.
Science as a human invention needs to be protected from abuse by people in the “Scientific Community” who use the word “science” as if it were a religion and they were the sole guardian priests who appoint themselves as the arbiters of what is “science”.
The abuse by members of the scientific community in order to service their social/political/religious agenda has turned the word “science” into a word like “Alchemy” or “wizardry”.
They abuse is deep and the abusers won’t admit it.
Time to cut off money and prosecute the abusers.
The first impression of the draft document is that it serves as a sham. It appears to impose a bureaucratic and labyrinthine procedure designed to make it virtually impossible for any allegations of misconduct and complaint to succeed until and unless those allegations serve the political purpose of the NOAA Administrators. The document has an uncanny resemblence to the procedures used by academic departments to derail legitimate investigations into academic corruption at the universities.
Any one that says the science is settled than can’t produce the science should be removed.
I like to see them add something like:
“It shall be in contravention of such rules or policies as NOAA shall prescribe as necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for any NOAA employee, or any other person acting under the direction thereof, to take any action to fraudulently influence, coerce, manipulate, or mislead the peer review process or any internal or independent body engaged in the performance of an audit of any scientific paper, testimony or public statement, for the purpose of rendering such papers, testimony or statements materially misleading.”
Am I daft for thinking their new scientific integrity policy may be heading a bit sideways if it
“Encourages scientists to publish data and findings to advance their careers ?
Lubchenco must have slipped that one in there. That’s her specialty.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110616_scientificintegrity.html
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.
Hansen isn’t with NOAA……you can’t google that before you post? No wonder many are ignorant about this topic.
charles nelson
Way to use one year. So you are saying that there hasn’t been any melting in the last ~30 years?
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/arctic-sea-ice-decline.gif
Get the government carrot and strings out of NOAA, and the respect will return.
May I suggest a thorough house-cleaning?
Public trust cannot be engineered through application of whitewash and/or rewording.
jafo says: June 18, 2011 at 11:36 am
” So you are saying that there hasn’t been any melting in the last ~30 years?
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/arctic-sea-ice-decline.gif ”
And what happened during the 30 years prior to 1979?
David says:
June 18, 2011 at 5:11 am
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” .”
David,
I think you have identified the core deception embedded by one of the NOAA post-modern science advocates. I encourage all of the good folks at WUWT to address this in their responses to NOAA, highlighting the original/historical definition of The Scientific Method as the only solid foundation for scientific integrity! These skunks are attempting another ‘bait and switch’ game of deceit. Don’t let them get away with it!
Thank You Very Much, for pointing that out, David!
Scientific integrity; did you actually try to prove your theory wrong? Did you allow politics and your own funding to influence the outcome of your experiments? Idakno, maybe because people with no scientific background at all are more correct with their opinions than you are with your “Political Science” has finally reared it’s head.
When the next “cold spell” completely annihilates this many named influence humanity is supposed to have over the climate happens, you will realize that the average idiot isn’t an idiot after all.
I’m too busy at the moment to actually read through the proposed NOAA policy. Is anyone else interested to know if the proposed policy has an retroactive provisions? Or is it just limited to future publications? I would imagine there is some housecleaning to do if they are trying to raise their ethical standards.
“The policy incorporates the principles of scientific integrity contained in guidance from the White House, …”
Boy, if that don’t say it all. And I found a typo –
“Encourages scientists to publish data and findings TO advance science, their careers and NOAA’s reputation for reliable science”
should be
“Encourages scientists to publish data and findings THAT advance science, their careers, and NOAA’s reputation for reliable science”
Subtle point, but they’ve been doing that for years.
I made a wishful amendment:
NOAA’s draft policy:
Encourages scientists to publish data and findings to advance science, their careers and NOAA’s reputation for reliable science.Requires scientists to publish data and findings because it’s the right thing to do.