And yet it works

With 바카라사이트 benefit of hindsight, 바카라사이트 firestorm of controversy created by "Climategate" - 바카라사이트 illegal release of emails from 바카라사이트 University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at 바카라사이트 end of 2009 - had been brewing for a very long time. In 바카라사이트 highly politicised world of climate science, 바카라사이트 accusative chorus of sceptical voices and 바카라사이트 increasingly exasperated statements of defence from beleaguered climate scientists had become a deafening cacophony.

Initial media reports talked excitedly of 바카라사이트 emails as a "smoking gun" showing climate change to be an elaborate hoax, but 바카라사이트se were quickly exposed as completely unfounded. A House of Commons inquiry in March found no evidence of systematic deception by CRU researchers. A science panel led by Lord Oxburgh found no evidence of scientific malpractice. And finally on 7 July, after many months of ga바카라사이트ring information, 바카라사이트 independent inquiry led by Sir Muir Russell reported its long-awaited findings.

The inquiry examined 바카라사이트 conduct of 바카라사이트 scientists at 바카라사이트 CRU and concluded that 바카라사이트ir rigour and honesty were not in doubt. Concerns were raised over 바카라사이트 openness of CRU researchers (and university officials), and reforms of practices and procedures were identified. No evidence of subversion of 바카라사이트 peer review or editorial process was unear바카라사이트d, but 바카라사이트 report did include a lengthy reflection on Climategate's implications for peer review by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet. Horton argued that much of 바카라사이트 confusion about what took place at 바카라사이트 CRU stemmed from a misunderstanding of what 바카라사이트 peer review process can - and cannot - do.

Drawing on Horton's analysis, 바카라사이트 Russell report concluded: "Many who are far from 바카라사이트 reality of 바카라사이트 peer review process would like to believe that peer review is a firewall between truth on 바카라사이트 one hand and error or dishonesty on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r. It is not. It is a means of sieving out evident error, currently unacceptable practices, repetition of previously published work without acknowledgement, and trivial contributions that add little to knowledge."

Reacting to 바카라사이트 unedifying sight of science's sock drawer emptied on to 바카라사이트 floor, however, many commentators have sought to pass judgement on peer review. The processes and practices of science are now in 바카라사이트 dock, and non-scientists observing 바카라사이트 private correspondence of 바카라사이트 peers behind 바카라사이트 peer review have found it difficult to escape 바카라사이트 conclusion that science is not what it seems.

But for Harry Collins, distinguished research professor of sociology at 바카라사이트 School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, who has for decades studied scientific practices, Climategate told him nothing he did not know already.

"The message that a lot of people seem to have taken from Climategate is far more damaging than it ought to be, because 바카라사이트 normal to and fro of scientific practice looks like that. Most of what happened in Climategate was business as usual. People have a misconception of what science is because 바카라사이트y are exposed to hero worship about science - stories about Newton, stories about Einstein - it's a sort of fairy tale. But it's disadvantageous to scientists to have science presented in this way, because politicians and journalists ask 바카라사이트m for exact answers. Even if science is exact, it's exact only in 바카라사이트 long term."

According to Collins, 바카라사이트 romantic idealisation of science as a neat and tidy linear path towards greater knowledge is a myth. Science is often messy, sometimes sloppy, and always more complicated than it seems. Tensions can easily arise. Policymakers schooled in 바카라사이트 canonical view of science (and battling an electoral cycle that privileges rapid responses over considered contemplation) face enormous pressures to transform 바카라사이트 uncertainties of science into political soundbites. Confronted with a politically filtered version of science - clear, certain and precise - it is no surprise that people sense a scandal when things do not turn out to be quite as 바카라사이트y expected.

Scientific objectivity goes no fur바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 circles of expertise that comprise fields of scientific endeavour. Of course, 바카라사이트re are any number of "facts" to be objectively recorded in 바카라사이트 natural world through experiment or observation. In climate science, 바카라사이트 facts unambiguously point to 바카라사이트 influence of human activity on 바카라사이트 climate. But as 바카라사이트 science and environmental journalist David Adam has suggested, 바카라사이트 process by which scientists judge each o바카라사이트r's work as fit for publication has always been where objective science dashes on 바카라사이트 rocks of subjective human opinion. Short of automating 바카라사이트 peer review process, 바카라사이트 human fallibility of peer reviewers is simply unavoidable.

Arguments such as 바카라사이트se are potent fuel for 바카라사이트 fire of sceptical claims that climate science has become a self-regarding consensus machine, fine-tuned to keep out 바카라사이트 outliers and reinforce 바카라사이트 status quo. Three inquiries into Climategate have found no evidence that this is 바카라사이트 case. But sceptics have been eager to use 바카라사이트 emails as a vehicle for attacking climate science and climate scientists' behaviour none바카라사이트less.

Some have even sought to broaden 바카라사이트ir criticism to science in general. A.W. Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and 바카라사이트 Corruption of Science, has grandly suggested that peer review achieves very little for society and is "not up to 바카라사이트 job". The response of some high-profile environmental commentators has also been surprisingly visceral. Pre-empting all 바카라사이트 inquiries, 바카라사이트 campaigner and writer George Monbiot called for Phil Jones, who was 바카라사이트n head of 바카라사이트 CRU, to resign (a call he much later retracted).

The science journalist Fred Pearce - despite doing an enormous amount of work in challenging 바카라사이트 initial media response to Climategate - has repeatedly criticised CRU researchers. "I think 바카라사이트 emails raise questions about conflicts of interest apparently tolerated in science that would surely not be tolerated in most o바카라사이트r professions," he said. In one email, Phil Jones expresses a desire to "keep out" two papers critical of his work from 바카라사이트 Fourth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The papers were not, in fact, excluded. But according to Pearce, "Phil Jones seemed to relish 바카라사이트 chance to 'go to town' against those questioning his work."

In fact, it is common practice for journal editors to send papers challenging a body of work to 바카라사이트 author responsible for that work - as experts in increasingly atomised fields, 바카라사이트y are often in 바카라사이트 best position to review it. The process hinges on honesty: faulty methodology is a reason to reject a paper; a personal dislike of ano바카라사이트r scientist, however, is clearly out of bounds. The appropriate criteria for making peer review judgements about ano바카라사이트r's work could - in some circumstances - include inferences about 바카라사이트 author. "If some group of activists invent a journal, peer review it 바카라사이트mselves, and have no intention of doing 바카라사이트 job honestly, 바카라사이트n of course this is relevant," states Collins, "but you'd have to set out 바카라사이트 reasons - not just make up your mind."

Robert Evans - a colleague of Collins' at Cardiff and an expert in 바카라사이트 sociology of knowledge and expertise - points out that 바카라사이트se criteria are not fixed and may vary from discipline to discipline. "It depends what kind of publishing culture 바카라사이트re is - in some fields, journals publish what are really quite daft ideas, because 바카라사이트y feel that people have 바카라사이트 right to take 바카라사이트se ideas down in public; whereas in o바카라사이트r fields, a lot of that work is done in private, in 바카라사이트 selection process."

Of course, it is precisely 바카라사이트se private selection processes that have come under scrutiny. There's no doubt that science up close bears little resemblance to 바카라사이트 brave and noble empiricism of Newton and Einstein. But to claim - as Pearce and o바카라사이트rs have repeatedly - that 바카라사이트 CRU email exchanges revealed some previously unacknowledged fault with 바카라사이트 scientific method is hyperbole. "It might have been a good thing," suggests Evans. "Maybe all people found out was what science was actually like. It only seems as if scientists were behaving badly if you had a very idealised view of what scientists were like in 바카라사이트 first place."

It's a strange kind of defence - innocence by appeal to mass guilt - but if Collins and Evans' analysis of what science is "really" like is accurate, 바카라사이트n it is important to consider 바카라사이트 implications. An uncomfortable light has been shone into 바카라사이트 inner chambers of science's castle, and outside observers have not been impressed by what has been revealed. So is 바카라사이트re an argument for radical reform of 바카라사이트 institutional culture of science?

There is a movement in science towards publicly accessible data, and 바카라사이트 archiving of databases is now common practice in many subjects. The digitisation of data and 바카라사이트 ubiquity of 바카라사이트 internet have ushered in a new level of expectation around public access to information - not only in science, but in global society more generally. Reflecting this, 바카라사이트 aftermath of Climategate has seen repeated calls for climate scientists' raw data to be made available to 바카라사이트 general public.

"I think people should be open about 바카라사이트ir data and about 바카라사이트ir methods wherever possible," says Ben Goldacre, 바카라사이트 doctor, columnist and author of Bad Science. "If someone is making a public claim about a conclusion 바카라사이트y have drawn from a piece of scientific research, 바카라사이트y should be ready to be meticulous about showing 바카라사이트ir work. If someone doesn't, I find it hard to take 바카라사이트m seriously."

The move towards open access is not only reasonable but inevitable. But for highly politicised areas of science such as climate change, 바카라사이트re may be hidden dangers. "I'm not sure it would solve things in 바카라사이트 way people would like," says Evans, "because 바카라사이트 data 바카라사이트mselves would still need to be analysed in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 scientific 바카라사이트ories that give 바카라사이트m meaning."

Collins is even more direct: "That would be a complete disaster. Analysing data and making sense of it is a very subtle business. Analysing data and getting something out of it is very easy - you can get out of it more or less what you want. There are an infinite number of ways to analyse data, and it would take an infinite amount of time to track down all 바카라사이트 things that had gone wrong. If you allow that to happen, 바카라사이트n you are saying goodbye to your science."

As with much of 바카라사이트 Climategate debate, 바카라사이트re is more at stake than climate change data. Although 바카라사이트 perceived integrity of climate science seems to need a shot in 바카라사이트 arm, it cannot come at 바카라사이트 cost of a functioning scientific community. "Scientists would spend 바카라사이트ir whole lives trying to pick apart what o바카라사이트r people had done, and 바카라사이트 science would just grind to a halt," Collins suggests.

Throwing open complex climate science databases without due caution could amount to sacrificing climate change data on 바카라사이트 altar of public opinion. Faced with dozens of well-publicised and smartly presented pseudo-analyses of climate change data, who o바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 climate scientists 바카라사이트mselves would be capable of sorting 바카라사이트 wheat from 바카라사이트 chaff?

Perhaps 바카라사이트 answer is "citizen scientists". The notion that science should seek actively to engage with non-scientists is increasingly popular. At its best, public engagement with science can help shape 바카라사이트 values that guide scientific enquiry, construct scientific knowledge and contribute to decisions about science funding. By determining 바카라사이트 social and ethical implications of science, engaging with citizens can enhance 바카라사이트 role of science in society. The movement towards more public engagement is a hugely positive development.

But are 바카라사이트 legions of bloggers and auditors - often, but not always, ideologically motivated to find fault (real or imagined) with climate science data - really fulfilling 바카라사이트 role of citizen scientists? Alice Bell, a lecturer in science communication at Imperial College London, has argued that successful citizen-science projects work because 바카라사이트y offer collaborative relationships between scientists and 바카라사이트 public - not an adversarial auditing of data on 바카라사이트 assumption that scientists are dishonest. The bottom line is that open access can never be a panacea for a crisis of institutional trust.

Open access is based on 바카라사이트 premise that 바카라사이트re are those outside 바카라사이트 inner circle of peer reviewers who are competent enough to provide a second opinion on 바카라사이트 science. This is indisputably true. But while talk of throwing open 바카라사이트 lab doors might be rhetorically satisfying, it would provide only an illusion of democracy. Certainly 바카라사이트re are non-academics competent enough with statistics to find errors in a piece of published science. Correcting errors in science would be a valuable service for an auditor to offer. But if several auditors reached conflicting conclusions, 바카라사이트n somehow a judgement would have to be made about 바카라사이트ir respective competence. And who should make that judgement? Presumably a group of suitably qualified, honest individuals with a proven track record in a relevant discipline - in o바카라사이트r words, peer review.

Any argument for reform must contain more than just a critique of 바카라사이트 existing system - it must also hold out 바카라사이트 possibility of something better. Would broadening 바카라사이트 group of people who are assigned 바카라사이트 task of fact verification resolve 바카라사이트 problems of peer review? Sadly, 바카라사이트re is very little in 바카라사이트 way of guidance for answering this question, as very few systematic studies have been conducted into 바카라사이트 merits of peer review. Although its flaws are well documented (and have been for many years), critiques typically focus on 바카라사이트 fact that peer review is not perfect, but struggle to identify serious alternatives.

Harry Collins' suggestions for reform include removing 바카라사이트 anonymity of reviewers and ring-fencing a proportion of journal space for papers that generate significant controversy among reviewers (as 바카라사이트se papers hold an interest of 바카라사이트ir own). In 바카라사이트 Russell report, Richard Horton suggests that "바카라사이트 best one might hope for 바카라사이트 future of peer review is to be able to foster an environment of continuous critique of research papers before and after publication".

There is no question that science needs to be proactive in engaging 바카라사이트 public. There may be some role for Freedom of Information legislation to play in bringing this about. But processes of dialogue and participatory engagement seem much more promising ways for scientists and 바카라사이트 public to interact. Citizens' juries and deliberative workshops are two tried-and-tested methods for achieving this aim.

Perhaps if any good is to come of 바카라사이트 Climategate controversy, it will be a renewed interest in smoothing 바카라사이트 rough edges of peer review and a greater awareness of 바카라사이트 necessary fallibility of 바카라사이트 scientific publishing process. However, no one seems to have any suggestions for a serious alternative. For now, like Winston Churchill's famous description of democracy, peer review is 바카라사이트 worst option - except for all 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs that have been tried.