_-_Israel.jpg){kind=link}
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Should scientists share their data and method? EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stirred a hornet’s nest when he issued a demand for the end of secret science. But isn’t open sharing of data and method the way we have all been taught science is supposed to work?
Back in 2016, a team in Hungary thought they might have detected a new force of nature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – so the Hungarian team published all their data and method, to assist other teams to review and try to reproduce their work.
Physicists Think They Might Have Just Detected a Fifth Force of Nature
Get ready for next-level physics.
FIONA MACDONALD 26 MAY 2016
Physics can be pretty intense at times, but one of the most straightforward aspects is that everything in the Universe is controlled by just four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetic, and strong and weak nuclear forces.
But now physicists in Hungary think they might have found evidence of a mysterious fifth force of nature. And, if verified, it would mean we’d need to rethink our understanding of how the Universe actually works.
…
Evidence of this fifth force was spotted last year, when a team from the Hungarian Academy of Science reported that they’d fired protons at lithium-7, and in the fall out, had detected a brand new super-light boson that was only 34 times heavier than an electron.
As exciting as that sounds, the paper was mostly overlooked, until a team in the US published their own analysis of the data at the end of last month, on pre-print site arXiv.
The US team, led by Jonathan Feng from the University of California, Irvine, showed that the data didn’t conflict with previous experiments, and calculated that the new boson could indeed be carrying a fifth fundamental force – which is when the science world started to get interested.
That paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed as yet, so we can’t get too excited, but it was uploaded so that the other physicists could scrutinise the results and add their own findings, which is what’s happening now.
As Nature magazine reports, researchers around the world are racing to conduct follow-up tests to verify the Hungarian discovery, and we can expect results within around a year.
…
Read more: https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-think-they-might-have-just-detected-a-fifth-force-of-nature
Contrast the excitement and openness displayed by the Hungarian physics team, to the culture of secrecy which seems to prevail in the climate and environmental science communities.
… Scientists’ concerns stem from past calls for transparency that were then used against them. Epidemiologist Colin Soskolne, emeritus professor at the University of Alberta, has been on the receiving end of industry efforts to, in his words, “cast doubt and foment uncertainty.” He said scientists have good reason to be concerned about industry efforts to force publication of their raw data sets.
In the late 1970s, Soskolne found strong associations between oil refinery workers at an Exxon plant in Louisiana and incidence of throat cancer. The key connection: exposure to sulfuric acid. Exxon, which initially underwrote his work, hired a consultant to challenge his data (the consultant’s finding confirmed the cancer link, though with a lower correlation) and sent an executive to critique his work as sloppy before Soskolne’s academic advisers.
“They accused me of not being careful in doing the research,” Soskolne said. In the end, Soskolne received his doctorate, published his work and had his findings independently corroborated. But he offers this lesson to epidemiologists harassed by opponents to release their data: their findings will be twisted by corporate or ideological interests. This is the fear of science groups opposing the HONEST Act.
“The issue of sharing data has enormous implications for the researcher,” Soskolne said, “because anyone with malevolent intent can take your data, without you being party to it, and do with it what it wants.” …
Outrage at demands data be provided to “scientific competitors” is a regular theme in the climategate emails. For example, from Climategate email 1231257056.txt (Ben Santer speaking):
…
1. In my considered opinion, a very dangerous precedent is set if any derived quantity that we have calculated from primary data is subject to
FOIA requests. At LLNL’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), we have devoted years of effort to the calculation of derived quantities from climate model output. These derived quantities include synthetic MSU temperatures, ocean heat content changes, and so-called “cloud simulator” products suitable for comparison with actual satellite-based estimates of cloud type, altitude, and frequency. The intellectual investment in such calculations is substantial.
2. Mr. Smith asserts that “there is no valid intellectual property justification for withholding this data”. I believe this argument is incorrect. The synthetic MSU temperatures used in our IJoC paper – and the other examples of derived datasets mentioned above – are integral components of both PCMDI’s ongoing research, and of proposals we have submitted to funding agencies (DOE, NOAA, and NASA). Can any competitor simply request such datasets via the U.S. FOIA, before we have completed full scientific analysis of these datasets?
…
Read more: Climategate Archive (Wikileaks)
As far as I know the evidence for the hypothesised new force of nature is still under investigation.
My point is, nobody has the right to demand their data not be “used against them”. The Hungarian team placed the quest for truth above their personal pride; from what I have seen they behaved in an exemplary fashion, the way scientists should behave. They would rather be proven wrong, suffer a little embarrassment, than deny their fellows the information they need to properly reproduce and investigate their intriguing results – even if that means others end up using details of their own research to prove them wrong.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So the Hungarian scientists have discovered cold fusion?
e-Cat is indeed supposed to be the lithium-7 reaction.
My first enquiry would be to look into the background of the Hungarians to check for any possible association with e-Cat team. If that comes up “clean” (no link) you can go further into the work.
Cold beer…
Another minor nit, but, shouldn’t it be “methods” not “method”?
The 5th element!
Hollywood had it right, lol
https://youtu.be/aB-AUTGqUCU
It is ego at work. Ben Santer’s ego was on raw display in that ClimateGate e-mail snippet.
It is why the ClimateGate email continue to be so damaging to them, it shows their intent.
As the guy who dishonestly changed the attribution statement in the Second AR, Ben Santer had a lot of professional reputation and work to protect. And if he would brazenly act dishonest when he knows others will see it as he did on the SAR, one can only imagine what he does when he thinks he can get away with data fudge-ery.
I recall my very first secondary school chemistry lesson at eleven years old which was on writing up experiments conducted and was to be done for every practical assignment. “Apparatus, Method and Result. Your report should explain what equipment was used and how and why it was used, your method should describe exactly what you did and what was observed during the experiment, your result should show your findings, your conclusions and any additional notes that you think important. The teacher explained that to have validity anyone should be able to take your report, follow your method and get the same result.
Peter C
My entire secondary school science experience was devoted to blowing things up and handling stuff considered hazardous today – e.g. chasing blobs of mercury with straws, in games of desk football.
And yes, we blew up a classroom, science teacher left with the smouldering remains of a taper in his hand and Tom and Jerry style mad professor hair and charred lab coat.
No wonder I’m so bad at science in my old age, we couldn’t write anything up for laughing.
Great fun but pointless.
Problem, Peter, is if the method is flawed you can get the same flawed result.
So my point is that the method itself should also be subject to scrutiny as well as the raw data and methods used to collect the data.
I see so many “adjustments’ to the data and then unverifiable coefficients in the climate models that I have lost faith.
Gums sends…
Ive just heard, from an anonymous source who, speaking under condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the subject, that the recent unemployment line participant, former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, has started an organization to protect the justifiably classified Climate Science research findings. This organization is called: Forbidding Unanswered Climate Claims – and – Outlawing Findings From – EVERYONE.
To simplify the title Andy’s organization is simply going to go by this acronym: … FU..OFF EVERYONE.
However, every other department in Washington, since 11/16 has wanted the same acronym so it’s bound to be a fight.
Are they affiliated with Michael Mann’s new group? Support for disHonest
Intellectual Targets.
What I find most disturbing about this debate is that they bring in some partially valid concerns about personal privacy in medical and drug investigations and act like the same concerns apply to weather and climate, which, of course, it does not. And the medical records concerns can be alleviated by using the first level double blind data which is used in all valid clinical investigations to avoid statistical bias.
I agree the solution is easy as you described.
The problem with EPA epidemiology studies on air pollution has been no replication in the sense that scientists at EPA or elsewhere have never used the published data of their supported investigators to replicate the results. It is impossible to duplicate these epidemiology studies, however the data should be inspected and a replication analysis should be mandated before making a decision.
Recently, 8 published articles have been criticized in a peer review journal:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230017300673?via%3Dihub
It is paywalled but has been obtained by many.
How the results of these 8 articles have been used is a good example of what Pruitt wants to avoid to make decisions.
Ozone and Short-term Mortality in 95 US Urban Communities, 1987-2000
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546819/
This Bell study of premature deaths due to increases in ground level ozone is one of the reasons I question the quality of the climate science studies.
1) no control population
2) recording biases
3) cities with negative correlation to increases in ozone
4) other factors with much higher correlations to premature death than ozone increases.
5) cities with ozone levels so low that it is highly unlikely that ozone was a factor in death (honolula for example)
To Joe:
Yes I agree with you.
Joe,
1) no control population
No, there wouldn’t be in a study like this, or many other epidemiological studies, for that matter. It’s not appropriate – you can’t say, this city will remain ozone-free for the next 5 years.
2) recording biases
Like what?
3) cities with negative correlation to increases in ozone
Negative correlation of what?
4) other factors with much higher correlations to premature death than ozone increases.
That’s accounted for in the data and methods.
5) cities with ozone levels so low that it is highly unlikely that ozone was a factor in death (honolula for example)”
Well, that’s data, too, isn’t it? That is like a control.
If YOUR research was paid for by MY tax dollars, then it is PUBLIC DOMAIN!
Not necessarily. The research leading to the atomic bomb was [and some it still is: e.g. what is the exact critical mass] highly secret.
If the Los Alamos boys had used climate science practices they’d have invented the Uranium suicide kit!
There is a very good book by richard rhodes “the making of the atomic bomb” . The book starts in the mid to late 1800’s covering many of the scientists and each little discovery as each progressed. The sharing of data was reasonably open to all the scientists, numerous meetings, sharing of info. It wasnt until the mid 1930’s (after hitlers rise to power) that the research became very secretive.
nuclear physics is lightyears more complex than climate science with only the chaotic system making climate science complex.
Fair point Leif.
lsvalgaard
Therein lies the problem. Had the EPA not lost the trust of much of the public i.e. American climate sceptics, by their underhand methods, Pruitt’s transparency initiative would not have been necessary.
What’s in question here is not the money or the science or anything else, other than the trust invested in a government agency by the public.
As an outsider, it appears the American public feel betrayed by an agency entrusted with their their integrity.
lost the trust of much of the public i.e. American climate sceptics
Unfortunately, the skeptics are not ‘much’ of the American public. Most people don’t give a damn [that does not in itself make them skeptics].
lsvalgaard
Pollsters usually perceive “I don’t give a damn” as a negative response.
So yes, the complacent majority do make a difference.
Pollsters usually perceive “I don’t give a damn” as a negative response.
So yes, the complacent majority do make a difference.
Well only in the unreliable polls, then.
That does not reflect reality, though.
lsvalgaard
Perception is reality to most.
Perception is reality to mos
Do you suffer from that too?
lsvalgaard
I believe we’re all subject to it. Aren’t you?
I believe we’re all subject to it. Aren’t you?
In scientific work we try hard not to suffer from that. In other matters, no so much, perhaps.
lsvalgaard
Are you saying that in you’re professional life as a scientist, you don’t suffer from it, but in other areas of your life you might?
In which case, how about the rest of society who aren’t scientists?
I contend that outwith our areas of professional expertise, we are all subject to confirmation bias simply because we don’t know what we’re talking about.
Of course, when it comes to politics, we’re all experts, because there is no qualification required to become a politician.
Are you saying that in you’re professional life as a scientist, you don’t suffer from it, but in other areas of your life you might?
Something like that, except I try not to suffer from as a scientist [may not always succeed]
In which case, how about the rest of society who aren’t scientists?
As scientists we then have a sort of duty to help improve the situation as best we can. Here we may succeed even less.
What I perceive is my reality, HotScot. Perceptions, however, change. One should always question his assumptions.
Heh, so not ‘lost’, but still ‘losing’. The tide is going out on this one, and it’s about time.
========================
The research on the atomic bomb was CLASSIFIED. All scientists and staff had a security clearance to work on the project. They knew they could not reveal anything unless declassified by the government.
To compare this with a grant or contract from EPA for an epidemiology study is nonsense.
All data from the atomic bomb were in government files. They could be inspected anytime by the government scientists with a security clearance.
Where are the data from EPA epidemiological studies done by grantees or contractors? In their office with nobody having access? Nonsense. The data should be available for review.
The research on the atomic bomb was CLASSIFIED.
Even today, there is lots of research that without being formally classified, cannot be shared with foreign nationals, e.g. https://gov-relations.com/itar/
To Isvalgaard
“The research on the atomic bomb was CLASSIFIED.
Even today, there is lots of research that without being formally classified, cannot be shared with foreign nationals, e.g. https://gov-relations.com/itar/”
Please don’t mix the stuff you quoted with research at EPA.
We are discussing providing “scientific research data”. Not BS from government relations.
We are discussing providing “scientific research data”
That is what I was referring to, as directly exposed to it.
To Isvalgard:
“We are discussing providing “scientific research data”
That is what I was referring to, as directly exposed to it.”
Have you provided your data or have you directly exposed to it?
Have you provided your data or have you directly exposed to it?
Even though your question looks a bit muddled, I say that all my data in my own research has always been provided or taken form public archives.
I’m exposed to the ITAR problem every day.
If all your data has been provided. Good. I have done the same.
Real scientists want to be proven wrong.
Am I right?
Max Photon
“Real scientists want to be proven wrong.”
“Am I right?”
That”s the theory. I suspect the reality is, the best scientists enjoy a good debate and propose a theory to stimulate one.
The rest, well, they do science because the ‘scientist’ badge makes them feel superior.
Nonsense. Scientists publish results and data with an explanation and discussion and conclusion. Not to be proven right or wrong. But simply to bring issues or supporting or modifying about older issues in science.
I don’t want to be proven right or wrong. I want to present new findings, discuss how such can improve understanding. And in a rare case a new and possibly changing current thinking on a particular issue.
Nobody wants to be proven wrong. Real scientists are prepared to accept being proven wrong if it happens.
97% of real scientists agree.
I think if the 2 guys that discovered cold fusion hadn’t of shared their findings and kept it secret, that we’d have working cold fusion generation today.
“Should scientists share their data and method?”
Absolutely positively 100% yes when that data is used to steer political policy decisions.
Agree
Lots of data and methods posted, some for decades. Why not use BEST results?
Can you tell us what BEST results are???
Open source, open methods, open everything. Skeptic scientists, skeptic funders. None of the methods borrowed from previous work.
Seems people keep forgetting that there was a plan to end the argument of whether NASA, NOAA or others were doing things properly and came to proper conclusions. As it turns out, BEST came to the same conclusions.
http://berkeleyearth.org
Agreement with both sides with certain qualifications.
In a fractious environment where great opinion differences exist, such as pure climate science verses the carbon cartel-(who have demonstrated expensive capacity to skew not just the facts of science but have bought & paid for scientists, journalists, politicians & the kid in the candy store); it will be downright foolish if not damaging to a scientist character to publicly share all their raw data.
I applaud the moral higj ground of the Hungarian team in sharing their findings in hopes of validation.
Were there unbiased institutions who are willing & able to dispassionately investigate the long and arduous tasks our planetary explorers
have found thru their research, this is the answer to this debate.
When scientists are kings and kings are scientists, then we shall have a better world.
“it will be downright foolish if not damaging to a scientist character to publicly share all their raw data.”
IN PRECISELY WHAT WAY and WHY ?
Answer here :…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
If these “pure climate scientists” are so PURE then surely they could improve the rest of the
SORDID WORLD ( “us” ) by enlightening us with the purity of there erudition ?
Answer here:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
“When scientists are kings and kings are scientists, then we shall have a better world.”
Surely there are ENOUGH ELITES already !!
How about a FEW HONEST , DOWN-TO-EARTH SCIENTISTS sharing COMPLETELY
their findings. THAT WOULD SETTLE THIS STUPID DEBATE ONCE & FOR ALL.
Answer here:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
MIND YOU……the research FUNDING would also cease ………Oh ! Shirt !!
Answer here:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
.
ps. Additional funding WOULD BE AVAILABLE for OTHER PURPOSES , including research.
pps. When it is “found” that this is NORMAL , NATURAL and NON-PREVENTABLE and even
DESIRABLE and that MANKIND’S CONTRIBUTION is NEGLIGIBLE , some of those funds
could be put into ADAPTING to cope with ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS
ppps. There have been NO ADVERSE EFFECTS SO FAR……so it may not take much funding !
RSVP
As a former public employee whose files, work email, work product, computer files, and text messages could be subject to a Freedom of Information or Public Records Act requests at any time by anyone for any reason; it is very difficult to have sympathy for a publicly paid “scientist” who refuses to comply with transparency.
I note that in the UK, we have the ‘research excellence framework’ REF which compares the research performed at all UK universities.
Starting now, there is an instruction that all research has to be published in an open and searchable way via the internet.
A summary of the requirements are:-
The four UK HE funding bodies believe that the outputs of research should be as widely accessible as possible. For this reason, we have introduced a new policy for open access in relation to research assessments after the 2014 REF.
The policy states that, to be eligible for submission to the REF 2021, authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository. Deposited material should be discoverable, and free to read and download, for anyone with an internet connection.
The requirement applies only to journal articles and conference proceedings with an International Standard Serial Number. It will not apply to monographs, book chapters, other long-form publications, working papers, creative or practice-based research outputs, or data. The policy applies to research outputs accepted for publication after 1 April 2016.
As a researcher, if you do not follow these rules, then your research can not be included in REF2021 and your institution suffers.
UK institutions are already emailing their staff to ensure all research is uploaded…..
Is the US doing something similar?
I don’t know if the US is doing something similar.
All I can say is to applaud the UK decision.
Some of us retired before it was possible to ask universities to provide a mechanism to keep databases easily acceptable. Obviously it is easy to do now. I have even updated a database published years ago, to make it now easily available to students or others and easily obtained from my university. I hope we can all do this.
And a little more to your question.
An article published with my students in 1994 contained the description of a computerized method to obtain highly reproducible results. It was stipulated, at the end of the article, that the software used would be supplied free of charge to anyone requesting it and also included would be a file on how to implement this.
The software was in FORTRAN and running on DOS on a 386 PC! I then received a call from the president of a software company in France telling me if I would supply the FORTRAN, they would follow the directions and prepare a version to run on Windows. So they did. Now used all over the world with many publications.
This is SCIENCE. Do scientists need be told by the government what they should do?
If you have a sense of humour, you can visit unrealclimate. They also have a post with their view of “open science” and “reproducible science”. It seems nobody else knows anything about it. They did not mention the hockey stick.