From the International Council for Science, something for the beleaguered climate science community to consider.
Responsibilities of scientists underlined by scientific community
Rome, Italy – The General Assembly of the International Council for Science (ICSU) today reaffirmed the universal values that should guide the conduct of science. It explicitly recognized the key social responsibilities of the scientific community that need to accompany the free practice of science. While the focus of the Principle of Universality of Science – which is central to ICSU’s statutes and a basic condition of worldwide membership of the ICSU family – has been on the preservation of scientific freedoms, ICSU is mindful of the need for scientists to pay equal attention to their responsibilities.
“The balance between scientific freedom and responsibility is not always easy to get right, but awareness of its significance and of the value of ongoing dialogue must be maintained within the scientific community.” says Bengt Gustafsson, Chair of ICSU’s Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the conduct of Science (CFRS). “By extending its consideration of the long-established Principle of the Universality to explicitly include responsibilities as well as freedoms, ICSU has emphasized that this balance is critical both for science and society.”
The new wording of the Principle was approved today by the membership of ICSU at its General Assembly in Rome. It reads as follows:
The Principle of Universality (freedom and responsibility) of Science
The free and responsible practice of science is fundamental to scientific advancement and human and environmental well-being. Such practice, in all its aspects, requires freedom of movement, association, expression and communication for scientists, as well as equitable access to data, information, and other resources for research. It requires responsibility at all levels to carry out and communicate scientific work with integrity, respect, fairness, trustworthiness, and transparency, recognising its benefits and possible harms.
In advocating the free and responsible practice of science, ICSU promotes equitable opportunities for access to science and its benefits, and opposes discrimination based on such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political or other opinion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or age.
Promoting good scientific conduct and preventing misconduct is critical for science as a whole, and for this reason ICSU’s CFRS was also heavily engaged in the organization of the second World Conference on Research Integrity in Singapore in July 2010. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, which stemmed from the event, was presented to the Assembly in Rome. The statement emphasizes the need for honesty in all aspects of research, accountability in the conduct of scientific research, professional courtesy and fairness in working with others, and good stewardship of research on behalf of others.
Gustafsson adds: “As our world evolves, there are continually changing challenges to the freedoms of scientists, and an increased onus on the scientific community to articulate and embrace its responsibilities. Whilst there can be national, and even disciplinary, differences in the way research is actually carried out, there are certain principles and responsibilities that are fundamental to ‘good science’. Given the unique position of scientists as the gate-keepers of new knowledge in today’s knowledge societies, respect for these values is critically important if confidence in science is to be maintained.”
Founded in 1931, ICSU is a non-governmental organization with a global membership of national scientific bodies (120 Members, representing 140 countries) and International Scientific Unions (30 Members). The Council’s activities focus on three areas: planning and coordinating research; science for policy; and strengthening the Universality of Science. ICSU is frequently called upon to speak on behalf of the global scientific community and to act as an advisor in matters ranging from the environment to conduct in science. www.icsu.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Simple really. All publicised studies should be accompanied by the following ;
1. Public access to the raw data used in the study
2. Full explanation of the process used including all computer source code
3. Statement of conditions under which the study was undertaken
4. Results of the applying the specified process to the data given
An experiment is not scientific if it is not repeatable. All of the above is required for that to be true. Only the public owns publicly funded science. Proprietary ownership only applies in the private sector, not the public one.
The question remains after the flowery language is penned to paper.
What will they do or say regarding the state of climate science?
A statement of the bleeding obvious with the usual human rights/social responsibility bolierplate clauses. As a lawyer, this reads like mealy mouth, weasel words. In other words, it is language that sounds lovely and fuzzy and warm and morally good, but it can also could be interpretted to mean almost anything. Hence, it means nothing.
For example, `equitable access to data’, is consistent with an argument that, let’s say, Phil Jones does not have to producer underlying data, coz he’s worked so hard to put it together it would be unfair (not equitable) to require Good-Old-Jonesy let others get their mitts on it, and steal his glory/achievement, make a buck out of it, or whatever.
And what is with the section about opposing `… discrimination based on such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political or other opinion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or age.’ Huh? These principles are, surely, taken as assumed in the current age.
The Bear was expecting something of substance, about scientific method and integrity.
This release reads like an entry for a competition about who can write the most feel-good mission statement. Oh, and meaningless mission statements, at that.
Given the unique position of scientists as the gate-keepers of new knowledge in today’s knowledge societies, respect for these values is critically important if confidence in science is to be maintained.”
A gatekeeper is a person who controls access to something.
At first, I interpreted this to mean that only properly certified scientists should be allowed access to science.
I then thought it could mean scientists must honestly report on what the data (new knowledge) says.
Poorly phrased IMO.
TBear has missed the bit about no discrimination based on political or other opinion.
I suspect that this passage means exactly the opposite of what it says. “Science” by everyone except whites, Jewish, American, Western, males, etc. will be identified as being real knowledge.
It is pure identity politics.
heh – they have a ” Chair of a “Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the conduct of Science”” of the harem of the court of king caractacus
do they get to wear cummerbunds?
“It requires responsibility at all levels to carry out and communicate scientific work with integrity, respect, fairness, trustworthiness, and transparency, recognising its benefits and possible harms.”
Missing word: objectivity.
Lets see how the Team measures up to these noble concepts…
Integrity? Like ascribing everything under the sun to global warming? Nope!
Respect? Read the Climategate e-mails. Not in your life!
Fairness? We’ll have to redefine peer review like fairness. Yea right!
Trustworthiness? Like in hide the decline trustworthiness? I can’t stop laughing!
Transparency? Ignoring FOA requests and hiding behind IP excuses. More like opacity!
Recognising benefits? Profits to be made in carbon trading. Only if personal profit qualifies!
Recognising possible harms? Kill economies and food crops for fuel? What a joke!.
Final assessment: FAIL!
> and opposes discrimination based on such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political or other opinion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or age.
Yep, as always when American morons are concerned or addressed, the most important of all being the ****sex, gender identity, sexual orientation****.
The world is on the slide to oblivion. I hope so. Even science is not impervious to this scourge of progressiveness.
Regards
<i.recognising its … possible harms
That sounds suspiciously like – Don’t do politically incorrect research; Don’t published politically incorrect results; Don’t draw politically incorrect conclusions; Don’t formulate politically incorrect theories.
Well, I didn’t read the other’s comments first before I wrote my opinion above. But see I am not alone in my views.
Overall picture I figured out looks like the main burden of responsibility moved from true “scientific works” to vulgar “socio-political correctness”.
Regards
This, along with the AAUP ethics code is going to help free the Mann emails from the University of Virginia. Thanks Anthony for surfacing this report.
David Schnare
Another reminder there is science and ‘climate science’. In theory, they should follow the same practices, unfortunately the reality is very different.
Surely the basis of good science is that the researcher should carry out studies/experiments without any pre-conceived notions, beliefs, or a poltical axe to grind. It should totally independendent from those providing the funding. Also the data and it’s methodology should be made publicly available. Peer review should be carried out by scientists who are experts in different fields to prevent collusion.
None of the above happens in climate science or health studies.
A classic case in point is the research that the American Cancer Society carried out into the effects of second hand tobacco smoke. A study was funded by the ACS which looked at the incidence of lung cancer in non-smoking spouses whose spouse smoked; the study was to take 25 years. After 20 years the ACS asked to see preliminary results, the results did not show what the ACS wanted to see. The ACS stopped their funding, the scientists carrying out the study received funding from the tobacco industry for the remaining five years. The study showed conclusively that second hand tobacco smoke did not cause lung cancer. All the health organisations rallied together to decry the study as being sponsored by the tobacco industry. Any credibilty it had,disappeared, because of the public perception that the medics were good and tobacco was bad.
We have the same thing with climate science, any study showing AGW is not happening is blamed on funding or bribery from the oil industry.
Modern science is indeed in a sorry state
Andrew Harding “Surely the basis of good science is that the researcher should carry out studies/experiments without any pre-conceived notions, beliefs, or a poltical axe to grind. It should totally independendent from those providing the funding.”
I’d take slight issue with that to be honest. Generally you would expect an experimenter to have pre-conceived notions or ideas as they will be seeking to test their theory (theories being something people invest a lot of emotion in). The important thing is that they should be looking for ways to disprove their theory, such that their emotional involvement becomes irrelevant. Experimental results can never prove a theory, so experiments designed to do such are unfortunately doomed, by definition, to be largely worthless.
Agree wholeheartedly with the rest of it, or at least the ideas being expressed. Little last niggle, I’d have phrased “…The study showed conclusively that second hand tobacco smoke did not cause lung cancer…” more along the lines of the “…study failed to show any links between second hand tobacco smoke and lung cancer, with the exception of a statistically significant reduction in incidence of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to second hand tobacco smoke as children…” but I suppose that could be viewed as ‘off message’ 😉
Double blind peer-review
I think the key phrase is “…social responsibilities of the scientific community….”
Marx, Hegel and Engel would be so happy to see that.
Another way to put that in clearer terms is:
“…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a
member of the State’….. – Georg Hegel The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144) (Translation from William Shirer Historian)
The “social responsibilities” of advancing the socialist agenda trump scientific truth. Trofim Lysenko’s work to prove acquired characteristics is a classic example. Hopefully we are not repeating this example in a more subtle way.
“….Kammerer insisted that the induced changes he observed were fully inheritable. Kammerer’s experiments drew criticism due to his sloppy documentation and suspicious, apparently, doctored drawings and photographs. Kammerer defended his conclusions energetically but in 1923 his career came to end after the famous geneticist William Bateson found that Kammerer’s showcase midwife toad that supposedly acquired black mating pads, a trait that was passed to the progeny, was actually injected with black ink…..
In a cruel irony, Kammerer was warmly welcomed by the Bolshevik leaders of the Soviet Union and nearly ended up moving his laboratory to that country….. Lysenko and his henchmen were not scientists at all, not by any stretch, but utterly shameless criminals who exploited the abnormal situation in the country to amass in their hands extraordinary power over Soviet scientific establishment and beyond… Mostly, the Lysenkoist “science of true Darwinism” was not even fraudulent because its adepts often did not bother to fake any “experiments” but simply told their ideologically inspired tales. This could have been comical if not for the fact that many dissenters literally paid with their lives, whereas almost all research in biology in the Soviet Union was hampered for decades. There is no reason to discuss Lysenko any further here; detailed accounts have been published [15-17], and the proceedings of the infamous 1948 session of the Soviet Agricultural Academy, where genetics was officially banished, remain a fascinating even if harrowing read [18].” http://www.biology-direct.com/content/4/1/42
The key is “challenges to the freedom of scientists”.
Who is “challenging the freedom of scientists”?
Heretics.
Heretics are challenging the freedom of scientists to lie and commit pseudoscience.
Basically what this new statement means is: “Heretics will be the next biofuel.”
“Rome, Italy – This story may be the impetus for this statement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14981921
Italian scientists on trial
So many words and so little meaning.
@Philip Bradley
“A gatekeeper is a person who controls access to something.”
I agree with Mr Bradley. This is bad. Any attempt to position ‘scientists’ as a different class and give them ‘responsibilities’ is a first step to exerting control over thought.
There is no class of ‘scientists’. Scientific thinking is a method of examining phenomena to determine what is true, supported by a publishing and teaching infrastructure, in exactly the way Roger Bacon proposed in the 1200s. Anyone can do it, under any circumstances. It so happens that we pay some people to do it in areas where society or commerce thinks that finding out the truth may be particularly profitable or useful, but that does not stop anyone else joining in, from interest or curiosity.
I have seen appeals to ‘scientific responsibility’ elsewhere, quite recently. Learned societies in a number of places have been claiming that ‘scientific responsibility’ is the thing that should stop scientists supporting disturbing and mistaken hypotheses which do not have the support of the overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists. Hypotheses like Intelligent Design and Climate Change Denial….
The Globe and Mail today repots that Gordon McBean, one of Canada’s top climate change scientists, has been elected president of the International Council for Science (ICSU). The report notes that “Mr. McBean, 68, is a professor at the University of Western Ontario and has a densely packed resume in the fields of climate change and disaster risk reduction related to climate change. He is chairman of START, an organization that studies the affects of climate change in Africa and the Asia-Pacific area, and was a lead author of the International Panel on Climate Change report that won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He was also a lead author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.”
So 17th century…
Read the ICSU statement then read some of Andy Revkin.
The ISCSU statement preparers and Revkin seem to have had the same sociology and political science professors at university; perhaps professors who were colleagues of Jerome Ravetz.
That is my theory of the root cause of modern alarmism of which climate alarmism is just one of several current examples.
Now the next question, from what philosophic tradition did they intellectually inherit their social orientation?
John