5 May 2015
Ms. Marge Dwyer, Harvard T.P. Chan School of Public Health
mhdwyer “at” hsph.harvard.edu
Dear Ms Dwyer:
Research-related fraud at Harvard institutions
A series of connected frauds surrounding research into climate change and related questions at Harvard has come to light because an environmental advocacy group had falsely accused Lord Monckton’s distinguished research colleague Dr Willie Wei-Hock Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics of having failed to disclose a funding conflict in a paper in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Dr Soon, like all his co-authors, had received no funding for his research into climate sensitivity modeling. That did not stop Dr Charles Alcock, the Center’s director, from allowing it to issue a statement alleging Dr Soon had failed to disclose a conflict of interest and claiming that it proposed to “investigate” him, when in fact it had itself negotiated a contract with Dr Soon’s funder for solar research that forbade it or Dr Soon to disclose the funder’s identity. Dr Soon had played no part in those negotiations. The Center alone was responsible. Dr Alcock also falsely told a journalist that the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics had no legal existence and alleged that, therefore, Dr Soon ought not to have described his affiliation as “Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics”, falsely implying that Dr Soon had improperly inflated his credentials.
Your name appears as the contact for a press release at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/clean-power-plan-health-benefits-hinge-on-policy-decisions/, entitled Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions. The press release constitutes a gushing encomium of a commentary entitled US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change: doi:10.1038/nclimate2598.
Two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance.
The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million.
Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”?
Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary?
Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate skeptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not in fact possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist, when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?
Would the School please tell His Lordship, who has standing as Dr Soon’s lead author, how to lodge a complaint of research misconduct in respect of the massive, direct and undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of its researcher Mr Schwartz, and of the School’s misrepresentation of the commentary as “independent”?
Yours truly,
James Rowlatt
Clerk to Lord Monckton
‘Oy you bunch of self-righteous, sanctimonious, self-serving, taxpayer-funds-engorging bunch of opinion-paper-writers for hire…….
That there slush-funded institution called Harvard, wot makes out like it does dispassionate research, like, is doing the equivalent of getting funded for skin colour issues from ex slave owners, cancer research from tobacco companies, GM crop impact evaluations from Monsanto, or writing on football courtesy of Rupert Murdoch’s spondoolies.
Now perhaps you might like to start by telling us all why you think that publishing in Nature Climate is ‘independent research’. Anyone with an IQ above 80 who has followed the editorial lines of the entire Nature stable the past 15 years knows that the Nature stable is about as independent in climate change terms as the Koch Brothers are purported to be in political terms. Papists confronting heretics in other words.
You may be doing a bit of pole dancing to your own dodgy clientele, but that doesn’t mean you’re voicing the views of the majority.
Send a similar complaint to the editors of Nature Climate Change and of Nature proper.
And submit it as an editorial to the Boston Globe and Boston Herald.
Good letter. I hope it gains the traction it deserves.
Dr Charles Alcock has done a fine job of promoting the seriousness of non disclosure. He and the authors should face the same music as the song they have sang. Harvard has a problem and Alcock and Co. seems to be it.
Don’t even know where to start there is so much dishonesty.
Let’s start with conflating CO2 with “cleaner air”, CO2 is not a pollutant and will never be. No one is going to receive any “immediate” benefit from human reduced CO2 production. In the middle lets pick ignoring or lying about about who signed the confidentiality agreement preventing Dr. Soon from disclosing sources. Lets end with $50 million apparently having no influence on the analysis of the objectives of a political organization that provided the $50 million.
Harvard Teaching Hospital to Face Trial for Research Fraud
“http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1462&Itemid=208”
That was in 2012. Has the trial occurred? What were the results? Can’t find links to articles later than 2012. /Mr Lynn
“Competing financial interests” obviously means “financial interests that compete with my ideology”. In other words, it is interpreted to mean “I didn’t get money from the Koch brothers or Big Oil.
They weren’t asked if they had taken money from colluding financial interests.
Copy and paste the letter to your congressman/woman D or R. Let them know you are aware of the fraud.
Breathlessly awaiting the New York Times to hit Harvard hard on this “conflict” as well! And I’m sure Boxer and Co are drafting another inquisitional letter.
“Dr Soon, a climate skeptic”. I’m starting to wonder if there is a better term than “skeptic” for people who don’t think CO2 levels are a disastrous problem. “Skeptic” implies to me that there is a fixed conclusion about something and people are on the outside questioning it. That “something” is kind of vague – do skeptics question whether or not the globe is warming? Whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Whether or not the Earth is round? Too bad there’s not a concise way to call oneself “a person who doesn’t think the CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans will make the planet uninhabitable and does think it would be great if there was unbiased climate science to better inform us” or something along those lines.
A climate realist
The Harvardians themselves placed the charge and Lord Monckton was kind enough to light the fuze. It is burning slowly but inextinguishable. At the end there will be a mighty bang and a lot of débris. Well done, your Lordship!
Climate Week: “Climate Change and Human Health: Impacts and Opportunities” with Joel Schwartz and Sam Myers
http://tinyurl.com/n25k3px
Joel Schwartz is a recipient of one of the MacArthur Foundation ‘genius’ grants. That certifies his credentials as a leftwing moonbat.
To the people of the U. S. A. ……………………..WAKE UP !
Send this to your elected representative immediately.
If you do not do so, you will be part of the problem.
(If you cannot work your computer properly, ask a nine year old, they will do it for you in a flash).
WAKE UP and DO IT NOW ! … and yes, I am telling you what to do (which is not my style) but I should do the same thing to prevent the death of an innocent child playing with a hand-grenade.
PLEASE WAKE UP !
Warren….I was going to reply and tell you your original indented paragraph was inappropriate, but I see that it has been removed by Mod. A copy and paste to the article on the PC Address Bar would be a good way to inform others.
I am just as angry as anybody about the AGW Scam, but you have to be polite and intelligent how you discuss the subject with others. Don’t get caught in the trap of behaving like ‘Those People’ (as General Robert E. Lee would say).
Thank you: I appreciate that.
Kind Regards,
WL
Thank you: I appreciate that. Kind Regards, WL
Warren Latham Mobile: 07708-239572