By Dr. David Schnare
N.B., Dr. Schnare is the lead attorney in the UVA-Mann email case.
This week Nature Magazine published an editorial suggesting that “access to personal correspondence is a freedom too far” and that Michael Mann, whom they favorably compare to Galileo, should have his emails, written and received while he was a young professor at the University of Virginia, protected from public release on the core basis that to do otherwise would “chill” the work of scientists and academics. I note Galileo was forced to keep his work private. Had he the opportunity, he would have published it far and wide. Mann is quite the opposite. He wants to keep secrets and let no one know what he did and how he did it.
Nature, unfamiliar with the facts, law and both academic and university policy as applies in this case, conflates too many issues and misunderstands the transparency questions we raise.
The facts of the case include that these emails are more than five years old; that they contain none of the email attachments, no computer code, no data, no draft papers, no draft reports; that the university has already released over 2,000 of them, some academic and some not; that when they were written Mann knew there was no expectation of privacy; that all emails sent or received by a federal addressee are subject to the federal FOIA, and many have already been released; and that nearly 200 of the emails the University refuses to release were released by a whistleblower in England.
That latter group of emails, part of the “Climategate” release, do more than merely suggest Mann engaged in academic improprieties. They show he was a willing participant in efforts to “discriminate against or harass colleagues” and a failure to “respect and defend the free inquiry of associates, even when it leads to findings and conclusions that differ from their own.” Other emails document Mann’s communications were not “conducted professionally and with civility.”
Thus, emails already available to the public demonstrate that Michael Mann failed to comply with the University of Virginia Code of Ethics and the American Association of University Professors Statement on Professional Ethics.
A question, not mine, but asked by many who are interested in the history of this period, is not whether Mann failed to live up to the professional code expected of him. It is to what degree he failed to do so and to what lengths the university will go to hide this misbehavior. If we merely sought to expose Mann’s failure to display full academic professionalism, we would not need these emails. Those already in the public eye are more than sufficient for any such purposes.
I want those emails for a very different reason. Our law center seeks to defend good science and proper governmental behavior, and conversely to expose the converse. Without access to those kinds of emails, and, notably, research records themselves, it is not possible for anyone to adequately credit good behavior and expose bad behavior. This is one of two reasons we prosecute this case. It is the core purpose of a freedom of information act. Because the public paid for this work and owns this university, it has not merely a right to determine whether the faculty are doing their jobs properly; it has a duty to do so. This is not about peer review; it is about citizens’ acting as the sovereign and taking any appropriate step necessary to ensure those given stewardship over an arm of the Commonwealth are faithfully performing.
The second reason we bring this case is to defend science and the scientific process. Anyone who has taken a high school science laboratory course knows that the research or experimental process begins with recording what was done and what was observed. As UVA explains in its Research Policy RES-002, “The retention of accurately recorded and retrievable results is of the utmost importance in the conduct of research.” Why? “To enable an investigator to reproduce the steps taken.”
Currently public emails show Mann was unable to provide even his close colleagues data he used in some of his papers and could not remember which data sets he used. A query to UVA shows the university, who owns “the data and notebooks resulting from sponsored research,” had no copy of Mann’s logbooks and never gave him permission to take them with him when he left UVA. The university refused to inquire within Mann’s department as to whether anyone there knew whether he even kept a research logbook, so it’s impossible for me to know whether he stole the logbook or just never prepared one in the first place.
The emails ATI seeks are all that appears to be left of a history of what he did and how. Absent access to those emails, anyone seeking to duplicate his work, using the exact same data and methods, has no way to do so. That is in direct conflict with both good science and the UVA research policy.
Nor should access to these kind of emails “chill” the academic process.
As a former academic scientist, I understand the need and desire to keep close the research work while it is underway. Both I and the university have a proprietary interest in that work, while it is ongoing. Once completed, however, I have a duty to share not only the data and methods with the academic community, I also have a duty to share the mistakes, the blind alleys, the bad guesses and the work and theories abandoned.
Science advances knowledge by demonstrating that a theory is wrong. All the mistakes, blind alleys and bad guesses are valuable, not just to the scientist himself, but to his colleagues. By knowing what did not work, one does more than simply save time. One gains direction. One mistake revealed often opens a vista of other ideas and opportunities. The communications between scientists during a period of research are the grist for the next generation of work. Ask any doctoral candidate or post-doc how important being part of the process is on the direction of their future research. They will tell you that these unpublished communications are as much an important scientific contribution as the final papers themselves. Anyone who wishes to hide those thoughtful discussions hides knowledge.
If anything is “chilling” it is the thought that a neo-Galileo is hiding knowledge.
Martin says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Hi Jae
You might think differently about this issue if you looked behind the curtain…
Dr. David Schnare and the American Tradition Institute…
_____________________________
I do not care whether Dr. Schnare is a cannibal who ate his mother for lunch. All that matters is that we have a Scientific Method, a Freedom of Information Act and work MY TAX DOLLAR PAID FOR!
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/1-scimethod.htm
In other words by defying the FOIA Mann is acknowledging the fact he is NOT DOING SCIENCE!
I wish you non-science types and Post-normal pseudo-science types would get that point through your heads.
If it is not reproduced it ain’t Science it is Snake Oil.
GALILEO? More like Piltdown Man’s creator!
RockyRoad says:
November 14, 2011 at 8:54 pm
go back to basics and determine if Mann left or took his log book with him
In 46 years of research I have never kept a ‘log book’ nor have I known anybody who has. If you are conducting an experiment or a workshop, then you will ordinarily have documentation related to that experiment and recently it is likely that the documentation would be a shared and joint document [e.g. a Wiki, like http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home ], but that would not be a ‘log book’ in the usual sense. Whether a PC can be considered a log book is debatable as the PC is too dynamic.
Again…it is sad to say bet needs to be said…one of the great universities and institutions in the USA which whitewashed the Michael Mann BS with an “investigation” (at the taxpayer’s expense) is now having to explain itself on what will probably become the worst and most repugnant college sports scam in history.
So…if we can’t trust them on that horrible revolting mess…then why the hell should we even remotely trust them on something more minor, like a hockey-stick scientific FRAUDSTER who is sheltered among their ranks??
How much Mass Groupthink / Cognitive Dissonance Disorder should we be able to endure as a species…before we annihilate ourselves?
Geezus I mean REALLY.
The answer is…we shouldn’t have to endure any of it.
And we should not for one minute “trust” the “judgement” of Big Academia establishment at UVA either.
I certainly don’t agree with everything the Atty General in VA stands for, but I will cheer him on for being on the vanguard in attacking the constitutionality of Obamacare…as well as pushing FOIA to see what Mann has been up to on the taxpayer’s time….especially as when that “research” could cost trillions of dollars of extra burden on the mom and pops of the world.
Long live the truth. Keep chipping away, everyone,…and don’t stop.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Currently I am reading Montford’s book on the hockey stick. The crux of the argument is that Mann et al produced a paper that if true affected everyone. They with the help of others then published widely and consequently were believed without examination. When questioned and attempts were made to validate the finding an absolute refusal to help was the result. As yet there is no adequate explanation for this behaviour other than the suspicion that is total absolute fraud. If not why not reveal everything that is evidence for the conclusion and end it. Until this happens it will not end it is just too important.
re posts: Theo Goodwin says: November 14, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Many years ago as a teen I read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand… as I put the book down, I thought, good story overall, even with the silly immature relationship notions – but things could never get that corrupt, that bad, that fast. Maybe we could wind up somewhere in the middle of the book during my lifetime, but not the end.
Much to my dismay, for a number of years now it seems that every time I turn around, read or listen to the news, more and more frequently I find myself thinking “and Atlas Shrugs yet again.” That we’re far further into the latter pages of the book than I’d ever have imagined possible – especially here during the last couple of years. What I think concerns me the most is that it seems between education and parenting, kids are more and more willing and comfortable with cheating and morals, in terms of honesty, integrity, pride (JUSTIFIABLE pride, not false pride!), independence, capability, work ethics, etc., are disappearing. Not to mention apparently logic and rational critical thinking skills. All of which does not bode well for the future, to say the least.
But heck, the rate things are going, we won’t need to worry about the young folks screwing things up, we’re speeding down that path already.
That or I’m just getting cranky and cynical as I age. Heck, I’m only middle aged. At this rate, just think what I’ll be like when I’m really old! :0)
re post by: Martin says: November 14, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Martin, would you like a little cheese with that whine?
Hate to break it to you, but the factual, logical argument laid out by Dr. Schnare makes vastly more sense than the conspiracy theory emotional hyperbole in your link. Mann’s emails, data, codes, etc., created on University computers are all publicly owned, bought and paid for up front. There is no justification I can see for refusing to release everything.
I understand that the UVa stonewalling has been funded by another party to the tune of $1,000,000. I’m very, very curious as to who that would be. How would we go about finding that information?
R. Shearer says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Hasn’t he already been cleared after thorough investigation by Penn State University?
Yeah, the same folks who allowed a known child molester campus access right up until his arrest… They are REAL thorough investigators….
All the comments miss the simple reason for the FOIA. What is Mann fighting so hard to hide. The information does not belong to him, the rules state that.
What intrigues me more is the fact that UVA also seem have a reason for secrecy. To me, a good reason to have all this out is not only to protect the scientific method but to free all undergrads and fellow researchers to be able to stand up and say when something is going wrong. It seems obvious many in climate research are scared to stand up for reasons we are all aware off. Hell. this is a bunch of people that resort to editing comments on their own dictatorial website!
Far to simple for Climate Scientists, it’s not about facts, figures or advancing science it’s about grants, funding and belief that all humans are evil.
Cave men/women never heard of fuel poverty it’s a shame alot of the older generation now have over here in the UK. Advancement in science? you must be joking.
Mann dips deeply into the public purse for a living – costs millions. The result of Mann’s “science” helps to turn that public purse into a black hole – costs billions. Mann basks in praise of his contemporaries who are also funded by the public purse – costs God knows. Mann cries foul and issues writs right, left and centre when said public demand scrutiny in the name of transparency – priceless!
In paragraph four,where you pass judgement on Dr Mann’s activities,what is the source/are the sources of the the sections in quote marks?
Martin said
“You might think differently about this issue if you looked behind the curtain…”
which turns out to be
“But a Facing South investigation has found that the Colorado-based American Tradition Institute is part of a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation.”
Don’t you get bored with regurgitating unsubstantiated accusations. There was no proof associated with that statement. Yes of course anyone who questions those who have manufactured CAGW, must be a fossil fuel lackey – it is obvious they look evil. Therefore you do not need proof!
mpaul said:
November 14, 2011 at 7:16 pm
.”…released by a whistleblower in England”
To my knowledge, noone knows the identity or location of the whistleblower.
———————————————————
They should take algore’s Nobel prize away from him and give it to the Whistleblower.
Well Chris Horner reckons that UVA has spent half a million on legal fees. Which suggests ATI has also spent a similar amount.
Now David is telling us that ATI want those emails just for the completely innocent reason that they want to have a public record of Mann’s thought processes in arriving at his research conclusions. Even though these processes have been documented in their final form in the research literature. These results have not been falsified by subsequent researchers.
Here is what I think is more plausible. David is on a fishing expedition to find emails that can be presented in such a way as to discredit Michael Mann and by extension the entire field of paleotemperature research.
If the legal case was about some random guy studying grass hoppers ATI would not be bothering. The only plausible reason to bother is to interfere with political action on climate change.
This means that even if ATI can find nothing dubious in Mann’s emails they will still manage to “discover” something dubious by making stuff up.
Nick says:
November 14, 2011 at 11:48 pm
“In paragraph four,where you pass judgement on Dr Mann’s activities,what is the source/are the sources of the the sections in quote marks?”
Looks like someone didn’t bother to read the links at
“David Schnare says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:53 pm”
Commenters: Please review the basic facts of the Galileo case to avoid the egregious errors that have appeared here with distressing consistency.
Is there some way of practicing good science without having some acquaintance with what is and what is NOT the practice of good science?
As a person whose “science” education ended in high school, I think I can still define the scientific method and the difference between a good scientist and a bad scientist.
A good scientist will say… Here is my hypothesis, here are my data, here is my conclusion… I dare you to find something wrong.
A bad scientist will say… Why should I show you my data when all you want to do is to find something wrong.
Amino Acids in Meterorites (I need a new name soon) says:
November 14, 2011 at 8:22 pm
How about Soylent Grin?
I think Dr. David Schnare is being somewhat fractious. If the documents were truly subject to FOI they can be obtained through the normal channels. There are also several unsupported attacks on the character of Dr Mann (pardon me for not using latin to indicate that I am educated). These are personal communications, not inter-office memos, get real! However I do read this blog for amusement and Dr. Schnare has not disappointed.
If it’s not reproducible, it ain’t science. Sheesh, I know that and I ain’t even a sceintust, let alone a gummit-funded sceintust.
Well, to be honest I’d really hate for my email spool to be grabbed and pawed through by somebody hostile to me. After all, it contains all of the records of my hooker-and-cocaine binges, the love notes from undergraduates, evidence of my gambling problem and my collusion with the traffickers and child porn. Besides, there are nearly 20K messages spooled there — who has the TIME to go through it all? Not me. God knows what’s in there — perhaps I called a colleague a poo-poo head in an unguarded moment.
Then there is that damn logbook. Who knew? Here I’ve been doing research off and on for thirty years and I was supposed to keep a logbook? They should have told me during my original HR interview or something. Of course, I’m a theorist — all of my work is code and data and figures and papers and stuff like that, and anybody can get to it that wants to. Maybe experimentalists have to keep a logbook, dunno, but honestly I’ve never heard of any such thing.
So I find myself strangely split. No, not by a cocaine hangover, by the issue. On the one hand I think it is absolutely reasonable for 100% of Mann’s research “stuff” to be made public — his actual code and data in particular — although some chunk of that has already happened back in the days of the hounding of M&M. On the other, I have to seriously oppose the release of his email. It would really, really piss me off to have my email spool made public for anything less than a court order obtained under suspicion of serious criminal conduct, not just being a sloppy and incompetent and biased researcher.
The latter is many things, but not a crime. Criminalizing it would indeed have a “chilling effect” on academic research. I’d have to go through all of my own emails to make sure that I never made an unguarded remark, never called anyone a bad name, I’d have to hide the drugs, the sex, the arguments with my kids, all of the stuff I’ve ever said with the reasonable expectation of privacy. And I just don’t have time…
rgb
Looks like academic freedom can become the child’s hand in the cookie jar. In most of my career in exploration geochemistry, we were allowed to look at land by government permission (often withheld), at our cost. We were required as part of the conditions to lodge reports to the government at specified periods, at our cost, at the risk of losing access if we defaulted. We were even required to store rock samples, especially diamond drill core, marked, labelled, logged, for long after we had relinquished interest in the property. This is something like the latter part of the scientific method quoted above by Gail Combs, “In other words, if two different people in two different parts of the world perform the same experiment, they should both get the same results….. “. One way to do this is to retain original material for later workers.