Talk:Scientific data withholding
Thanks for posting your work here, Ron. I bet we'll get a lot of other Wikipedians who are tired of censorship coming over here. --Ed Poor 20:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Ed, you are welcome. I'm hoping to find other smart people who can make this first draft better. I am going to drop in some comments about the controversy here so interested people can do a little reading, if they would like, before editing the article.
More on Data Withholding in Climate Science
In an effort to explain some of the issues involved in this controversy, I have written an article Scientific data archiving which provides the policies of NSF, science journals and some of the issues around data archiving and replication. I have tried to make the article of general interest by not limiting the discussion strictly to climate science.
On the issue of climate research affecting public policy and therefore demanding greater scrutiny, JohnA has written: ‘’But the costs resulting from mistakes in climate studies, could measured in billions of dollars. Isn’t it time that climate scientists started demanding from their peers that all data sources, source codes, notes and methodologies be archived for open review prior to publication? It’s no longer a $5 mistake when climate reconstructions go wrong…’’
In a post above, William had suggested that more sources were required before the controversy regarding data archiving and sharing should be mentioned in this article. Of course, many other sources are available and some are listed below. However, it should be expected that Steve McIntyre would dominate this list. The website he runs is called “ClimateAudit” for a reason. Audits are not possible without data archiving and sharing.
Others who have entered the fray include:
- Roger Pielke, Jr. [1]
- Ron Errico – wrote “On the Lack of Accountability in Meteorological Research”
The group below all signed a letter to Science Magazine on the issue:
- Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
- Sir Colin Berry, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
- Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, USA
- Chris de Freitas, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
- Mick Fuller, University of Plymouth, UK
- Lord Taverne, House of Lords, UK [2]
Also above, Brian wondered about the status on the Jones request. At least two scientists have requested information, Steve McIntyre and Willis Eschenbach. They are requesting the data and methods used in compiling the temperature record kept at CRU and for his 1990 study on UHI. (Jones claims the data from Russian weather stations is homogeneous and most scientists have a difficult time believing that). When Warwick Hughes first requested the temperature data, Jones replied : ‘’Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.’’ [3] Several scientists are arguing for a lawsuit against Jones and CRU under the FOI Act to force Jones to provide his data and methods. Pat Frank of Stanford is arguing that McIntyre and others should reconstruct the global temperature record from available data in an open and auditable way. Frank believes the differences between the McIntyre series and the Jones series will shame Jones into releasing his data and methods. [4] [5]
Brian also expressed his opinion that the controversy was mainly about Mann and Jones. This is far from accurate. The links provided above discuss requests for information on Osborn and Briffa 2006, Esper et al [2002] and Thompson et al 1989 (Dunde); 1997 (Guliya). [6] None of these requests were satisfactorily met. Here are some additional links:
Shelby Amendment
I thought that the Shelby Amendment from about 1999 required federal research grants to require that the data be made available. Why nothing about it? RSchlafly 02:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- In the wikipedia article on Scientific data archiving, I covered the NSF policy on archiving. I don't know much about the history or how the policy came to be adopted. Was there a particular event that spawned the legislation? If you are able to add something of interest, please do. Personally, I think data archiving and its opposite, data withholding, should be discussed in the same article. But the data withholding portion became controversial on Wikipedia because I insisted on using the textbook description of it as "pseudoscience." I thought it better to split the two concepts because data archiving is of general interest and should not be controversial at all. I am going to rewrite the data archiving article to remove anything controversial. RonCram 05:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- I didn't want to write anything, because I don't know whether the Shelby Amendment was enforced or not. The amendment was driven by a couple of incidents where federally sponsored research was used to pass laws and regulations, and people disputing the research could not get the data. One incident was a study that claimed that Joe Camel was more familiar to kids than Mickey Mouse. The tobacco companies disputed this. The other incident had to do with the Clean Air Act or something like that. RSchlafly 17:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Editorial in Nature
Sharing materials: It is long established that scientific data are only meaningful if and when they are reproduced independently by other laboratories. Furthermore, the unrestricted sharing of materials and data is clearly essential for the community as a whole to build on knowledge. Without the free exchange of ideas and reagents, scientifi c progress would grind to an abrupt halt. Although almost everyone shares these fundamental academic ideals in principle, all too oft en concerns about competition and fi nancial ties dampen enthusiasm for sharing. As a result, we have now issued expanded guidelines on this topic (http://www.nature.com/ncb/about/ed_policies/index.html). [22]RonCram 11:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
