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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
See the impossible Schnare request here:
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2011/06/schnare-vs-uva-impossible-request.html
It is not JUST a log book and a few relevant emails.
Schnare wants to trawl through everything Mann has touched. To quote the demand:
1. All documents that constitute or are in any way related to correspondence, messages or e-mails sent by Dr. Michael Mann to, or received from, any of the following persons:
(aa)…
.
.
(nn) All research assistants, secretaries or administrative staff with whom Dr. Mann worked while he was at the University of Virginia.
what are documents?:
2. As used herein, the words “record”, “records”, “document” or “documents” mean the original and any copies of any written, printed, typed, electronic, or graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, any book, pamphlet, brochure, periodical, newspaper, letter, correspondence, memoranda, notice, facsimile, e-mail, manual, press release, telegram, report, study, handwritten note, working paper, chart, paper, graph, index, tape, data sheet, data processing card, or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter now in your possession, custody or control.
This is nothing more than an attempt to get a few more “Wow! Just Wow ” quotes from the anti AGW accolytes!
Nast! Just Nasty!
crosspatch says:
November 14, 2011 at 6:53 pm
I am simply amazed at the scale of corruption we see today in both academics and in government. What amazes me even more is a press sitting silent and enabling that corruption. They have the power to stop it, they choose to be a part of it.
Sickening, really.
____________________________________
Crosspatch, this only demonstrates the truth of how money and power corrupts. It is the reason I am pro-capitalism but anti-mega corporations and central banks. The more power and money is centralized the worse for the general population.
I can think of no horror for humanity worse than a world government controlled by the unelected and that is straight where we are headed within the next couple of decades.
Once they achieve their goals this worldwide totalitarian government will show its true colors to the watermelons and just like Russia’s intelligentsia, will find they were only tools to be discarded once they are no longer useful.
Would you be interested in the work of people who have demonstrated they have no honesty, honor or integrity, but do show an interest in disrupting the power structure???
>> Robert Brown says:
November 15, 2011 at 3:19 am <<
A lot of words that ignore the fact that UVa released Pat Michaels' E-mails without a whimper. Yet his works are not the basis for proposing massive new taxes and regulations.
Robert Brown: given your interpretation of the confidentiality of email correspondence at UVa, can you explain how the same administrators can decide to release all of Professor Patrick Michaels’ emails when served with an FOIA request from Greenpeace without any apparent qualms or legal attempts to protect.
I am curious about the relative tastes of sauces for goose and gander…
>>>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.<<<
Well said!
Billions have been squandered on the research world wide, and billions more are at stake. Obviously, the university has something to hide in those emails or they would have been released. I say the emails are public property because they were created on the public's dime.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 14, 2011 at 9:56 pm
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.
_______________________________________
This absolutely floors me!
Is it only chemists working in industry who were taught to keep a daily lab notebook??? Heck I can not count the number of times I got buttonholed to sign off on the weight of ingredients by the guys in the pilot lab.
Post Normal Science in SPADES or should I say science fiction. I sure hope your computer documentation has an “audit trail”
I have to laugh at the ad-homs against Dr Schnare here. Aside from the diversionary tactic of playing the man rather than the ball is this: Does anybody in their right, unblinkered mind want to suggest that Dr Mann’s work was thought/known to be a good example of the scientific method and integrity until Cuccinelli’s and the ATI’s intervention?
The ATI haven’t suddenly thrown a dark accusation into a pool of light and goodness. It’s been known for about a decade that the hockey stick was poor science and, with the years of obfuscation, suspicion has lingered over the veracity of the data and methodology used to produce it. UVa and Mann have had ample opportunity to demonstrate the solidity of the findings of Mann, but their reluctance or inability to do so on such an important matter has brought the case to a head.
Pretending that all was well until the ATI lawsuit is ridiculous.
1. Galileo wasn’t operating on tax-payers dollars.
2. Galileo was ultimately wrong as he thought the sun was at the center of the universe and not the earth.
Perfectly stated! Succinct and Brilliant.
“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.”
Lief: Really? Interesting, as I just spent a week trying to find a reasonable “Electronic Labbook” for my work, rather than Excel and Word !!
But seriously then folks, despite my engineering degrees and jobs I’m just a Plugger when it comes to my research projects, yet..I feel constrained to try to keep track of my work.
At the same time, when (as I suppose Lief is) I’m PAID to do work, I usually keep maticulous and copious notes.
Should we try to get you an ELN Lief?
Max
Robert Brown says:
November 15, 2011 at 4:27 am
..99% of all academic research is conducted in a proper and above-board …
Respectfully, Robert, I disagree. I have also been involved in academic research (as a private sector partner) for over 25 years. While I have met many excellent researchers and find most of them not to be political, it does not reach anywhere near 99%.
I would hazard a guess of 1 in 5 people I have run across had a secret agenda. It is just the climate science industry has attracted a lot more attention than I think even they ever envisioned. And while the 1 in 5 is worrisome, it is the 2 others for every 5 who do the “me-too” research that really messes things up. Because now you have a consensus in a field (academic research) that is not well equipped to fight back.
I have no comment on the case, because I’m not familiar with the details. I am familiar with IT security and privacy policies because I’ve helped write them. I am also QUITE familiar with the fact that it is struggle to maintain those policies in place in the face of a legal staff and University administration with all sorts of internal politics — the very thing the policies are designed to withstand. Given a chance, administrators will often erode or ignore the rules, even though they are “their” rules.
It’s a perennial battle at Duke, and I’m sure it is at UVA as well. I know of a number of cases at Duke where there have been battles over privacy and who owns what; my own department has had a few spectacular lawsuits over who owns research results (Google John Madey lawsuit, for example). There are also cases where for example, somebody was out on leave, a department chair needed to find out if somebody was sending him email associated with a conference (sent to the secretary’s account as she was handling registration) so he went into the account, discovered that she was looking for a job, and the whole thing explodes into lawsuits and recrimination).
The point is, that if Patrick Michael’s emails were “outed” on an FOIA request without requiring a court order, this TOO is an injustice, not that outing Mann’s would not be. If I were Michaels I’d be suing and publicly criticizing the University for violating its own written policy. Court orders change everything, of course. When a judge orders it, UVA will comply. If evidence of real fraud, criminal fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud is found, heads will probably roll.
Note well, by the way, that I’m as skeptical as anybody on this list and have systematically worked through the literature. This isn’t about defending Mann; I was convinced that Mann was an idiot after reading the original M&M stuff many years ago — it was a portrait at that time less of conspiracy and more of chronic incompetence mixed with the kind of cherrypicking and model tampering that is all too easy to do when you have prior conclusions you want to support. Hardly “evil”, just wishful thinking projected out into a spaghetti bowl of crap homemade statistical code that bollixed up the PCA.
What turned Mann into Frankenstein’s Monster was becoming — literally — the poster child of the IPCC. They were desperate for a smoking gun, because yeah, the MWP and LIA were problems, yeah, they lacked any actual science and the evidence as everybody currently understood it at that time was not at all convincing. The IPCC latched onto it the way the Christian Right latches onto fossils of “human footprints” next to those of T Rex or a report that once, a long time ago, carbon dating dated something wrong.
I’d be perfectly happy, in the long run, to see Mann’s work utterly discredited for the LAY public, but at this point he is already an embarrassment to the IPCC and the AGW climate crowd. And quite aside from my possible future happiness associated with this eventual possible event, I would find it very disturbing if ANY University released ANYONE’S email to the public without due process and either that person’s permission or a court order overriding that permission. The FOIA provides one with the right to ask for certain things, but free access to my email spool file is not one of them.
rgb
R. Shearer wrote: “Hasn’t he already been cleared after thorough investigation by Penn State University?”
I think he should have his name changed to Michael Manndusky.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 14, 2011 at 8:05 pm
“Our law center seeks to defend good science
With all due respect, this goal is suspect from the outset. How do you know if something is ‘good science’ and how does one qualify to be defended by you? I would like to belong to the group whose science is considered ‘good’ by your law center, what do I do to join?”
Lief, While I respect you greatly, this is a bit over the top. “Good Science” is judged along the same lines as good ethics. Was a reasonable process followed. Your standing as a good scientist will not be judged by history based on whether or not your latest model works. It will be based on how you have approached scientific inquiry. If my recall is correct, Galileo thought that the moon had nothing to do with tides. The fact that he was wrong does not make him a “bad” scientist. HIs criticism that the lunar model had no mechanism, just correlations, was a valid criticism. We’re in much the same situation with climate science. Time will develop the needed mechanisms and supporting work. In the meantime, process is what we can judge, and it is absolutely fair to do so.
I have no expectation of privacy or right to privacy when using my employer’s computers or email system. If I use my employer’s computers or email system for personal business or personal correspondence, then I still have no right to privacy (and may violate some workplace rules in doing so). Scientists and academics do not enjoy any special rights or privileges in this regard.
Robert Brown says:
November 15, 2011 at 3:19 am
Dear Dr. Schnare,
You forgot one very important link…..You really should read:
http://its.virginia.edu/pubs/docs/RespComp/resp-comp-facstf.html
…. I personally helped to make sure that they were in our similar acceptable use/privacy documents. In them, not even my department chair or a Dean can “casually” enter my email spool and read through it, not without just cause, and I would absolutely expect University lawyers and officials to knee-jerk defend the privacy of my email against any outsider not backed up by a court order.
….In my opinion it is perfectly obvious that all of this communication MUST be protected, that researchers MUST be able to communicate with every expectation of privacy….
Who would work for a University that would at any time just hand over all of your private work resources to a third party? Who would work for a University that would just publish your email, with all of your dirty laundry and unguarded conversations, to the world?….
_______________________
Prima Donnas aren’t you.
“Expectation of privacy” of course is the key phrase. Unfortunately it does not mean what we think it means. That is why Monsanto can have agents walk through PRIVATE PROPERTY and gather evidence to sue farmers whose crops are contaminated with their genetics…. So much for self-incrimination and privacy in US courts of law.
So do University profs have a magical “Expectation of Privacy” ???
Back to the document you so kindly provided. http://its.virginia.edu/pubs/docs/RespComp/resp-comp-facstf.html
Does not seem very “Private” to me.
Then there is e-mail in general.
Here is an example from a few years ago:
http://www.horsegazette.com/NAIS/NAIS_Supporters_Fighting_Dirty.html
This is just one example those who fought NAIS ran into. We learned anyone who considers e-mail “Private” is an absolute fool as is anyone who trust the US government.
Here is an article at “Findlaw.com” http://public.findlaw.com/internet/email-privacy.html
Sorry, US law trumps university policy.
re Robert Brown says: November 15, 2011 at 3:19 am
I knew it would be there because … personally wrote two of Duke’s computer security/privacy statements.
==============================================
Of note – Duke is a Private research university, and U Va is a Public research university.
Duke University http://www.duke.edu/
Official gateway to information and online resources of Duke University,
a private research university
located in Durham NC, USA.
UVa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia
The University of Virginia (also The University, Mr. Jefferson’s University, or Virginia; often abbreviated as U.Va. or UVA)
is a public research university located in …
Robert Brown says:
November 15, 2011 at 4:27 am
……When AGW crashes down as I am very afraid that it will, that indeed it already is, with it goes the CREDIBILITY of scientists everywhere, which will allow the religious nuts, the mythicists, the luddites to damage something that for five hundred years has been the one thing that stands between the human race and the dark ages — the “enlightenment” and technology and wealth and knowledge produced by the scientific process, and the trust in those that engage in this process.
________________________________
That is the real damage that has been done.
Since you are at Duke you should also be aware of another blow to science. The FDA stating Cetero has Fabricated Trial Data for pharmaceuticals. http://www.clinicalresearchsociety.org/2011/07/28/fda-says-cro-cetero-faked-trial-data-pharmas-may-need-to-redo-tests/
And the third: Psychology professor Diederik Stapel falsified research data in some 30 scientific articles published in peer reviewed journals. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/10/tilburg_professor_faked_data_i.php
This has blow back here in the USA where University of Connecticut psychologist Hart Blanton, expects to have to retract two papers written with Stapel.
The fact that Penn State is now embroiled in the mother of all scandals is just the icing on the cake.
99% may be honest (a highly inflated number in my experience in industry) but it is the other 1% who will be remembered by the public. The Universities desire to continue to “Protect” scientists and the refusal by scientists to make data public after the papers are published will only feed suspicion that “Scientists are dishonest”.
Michael Mann and the ‘Team’ are present day medieval scientists, who haven’t understood the modern scientific world. They think we have a science which is authoritarian centric like medieval period science was.
Lost to Michael Mann and the associated ‘Team’, all of whom had been critically exposed on the blogosphere and other venues going back years before Climategate, was/is the modern concept of performing and documenting publically funded climate science in non-authoritarian manner.
The ‘Team’ presumes the mantle of moral authority in their science. Their science is posited (a piori) in a non-scientific ideological context as a vehicle to save the earth from the most freedom achieving civilizations of modern man. To the ‘Team’, whatever they do scientifically in that context must be correct because it supports their self-appointed moral authority. To the ‘Team’ any opponent must have morally deficient motivations and to the ‘Team’ any opponent’s science must simply be at the least wrong but also probably purposely deceiving or worse.
So, ATI’s fully legal process efforts to get the documentation from Mann for the period he was at UVa are opposed by Mann (and the ‘Team’) on basis of the presumption of their morally good science defending itself against morally bad science or the forces of anti-science.
Mann and the ‘Team’ need to leap forward many centuries from their medieval mindset. The many thoroughly modern scientists can help them make the change.
John
I’ts called “discovery” for a reason. Since the requested documents have not been produced, just what is he supposed to link to? Ample links are available to document the assertion that his behavior does not meet the University’s standards on scientific behavior. GIYF.
Defending Mann needs to be equated with defending Paterno and the Penn State administration (that also recently whitewashed an investigation in Mann to “protect the institution”.) See where that gets you? Open disclosure might hurt, but the cover-up hurts worse.
This scandal reminds me of a drunk driver refusing to blow into the breathalyzer. The driver is drunk but somehow believes that by refusing to blow, he will escape justice. It doesn’t in our system and it shouldn’t work for the conniving Mann. He was the Mann driving. GK
WTG Keith! Shove that “My partisans are OK but yours aren’t” hypocrisy right back down their throat!
John says:
November 14, 2011 at 8:41 pm
“For those who might be interested: David Schnare just retired from EPA, where he worked for over 30 years. ”
AGW’ers attacking David Scnare;
Did you read that? Did it sink in?
Dr Schnare
Thank you, thank you. I’ve appreciated everything you’ve done and said, and how you’ve said it.
Robert Brown
I hope that Dr Schnare succeed in his endeavour. If you are correct that Climate Science represents only a tiny part of Academia but threatens to cast its blight over the whole of Academia, then this blight needs to be exorcised as soon as possible, for the sake of the rest, and if the legal process can best do this, great.
To me, there is also the question of one’s implicit responsibility, as a member of any group, for the misdeeds of other members. Also one’s responsibility simply as a human being for truth, righteousness, and justice.
Yes, maybe there is only a small miscreant clique in Climate Science. But there are wider shortfalls of integrity with those who should be the gatekeepers: heads of universities, enquiry panels, scientific journals, the most supposedly prestigious scientific bodies, and above all the IPCC who is accountable to nobody. It is well-known that paper-writers in many scientific subjects today need to genuflect to the Global Warming idol, if they are to succeed in either grants or peer-review.
“It only takes the failure of good men to act, for evil to triumph”
G. Karst says:
November 15, 2011 at 8:57 am
“This scandal reminds me of a drunk driver refusing to blow into the breathalyzer. ”
Exactly. What is interesting to see is the reaction of part of the public who sides with the driver.
Similar FOIA have been already done several times for several other scientists why do some people want to make an exception now? Based on what reasons? see also: Christopher C. Horner: Confessions of a FOIA criminal
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8614
Would be curious to hear from the protesters on this page how do they justify, is this ok to do FOIA for some and not ok for the other? Do we vote by popularity of the scientist? Are they aware of the situation? How does nature justify it? Ignoring the other cases? Will there be no FOIA request from now on on any? Is there no reason to have FOIA at all?