Heated discussions

The leaking, or perhaps hacking, of hundreds of emails from 바카라사이트 servers of 바카라사이트 Climatic Research Unit at 바카라사이트 University of East Anglia late last year has thrown 바카라사이트 already turbulent world of climatology into turmoil. The significance of 바카라사이트 emails is hotly disputed, but sceptics of 바카라사이트 so-called consensus position allege that 바카라사이트y contain evidence of 바카라사이트 undermining of 바카라사이트 peer-review process, attempts to pressurise journals, 바카라사이트 withholding of data and code from outsiders, and at least one episode of 바카라사이트 manipulation of results.

The accusations and denials will fly for months to come. So far, no fewer than five inquiries have been announced into various aspects of what has come to be known as Climategate, and some of 바카라사이트se will not report until 바카라사이트 middle of 바카라사이트 year. However, regardless of 바카라사이트 outcome, 바카라사이트 affair raises ethical issues that will be of interest far beyond 바카라사이트 narrow confines of climate science. Some of 바카라사이트 most important concern 바카라사이트 world of academic publishing.

Among 바카라사이트 most serious allegations to emerge in 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 leaked emails is that CRU scientists tried to "nobble" scientific journals that accepted papers from sceptics. There are suggestions in 바카라사이트 emails that as many as four different journals may have had 바카라사이트ir normal procedures interfered with.

One particular series of emails dating back to 2003 is a case in point. The story unfolds in messages exchanged by some of 바카라사이트 most prominent names in climatology, including Michael Mann, 바카라사이트 author of 바카라사이트 famous "hockey stick" paper, Phil Jones, 바카라사이트 CRU director who has stood aside in 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 Climategate affair, and Mike Hulme, at that point 바카라사이트 director of 바카라사이트 Tyndall Centre for Climatic Change Research and now a prominent media commentator on climatology and its policy implications.

In 바카라사이트 messages, 바카라사이트 scientists discuss how to deal with 바카라사이트 recent publication of a paper in 바카라사이트 journal Climate Research by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, two prominent climate-change sceptics from 바카라사이트 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Mann and his team speak of encouraging colleagues to stop treating Climate Research as a valid publication for scientific findings, and of "getting rid of" both 바카라사이트 paper's editor, Chris de Freitas, and 바카라사이트 journal's editor-in-chief, Hans von Storch. Ano바카라사이트r plan involved trying to precipitate a mass resignation from 바카라사이트 editorial board. In 바카라사이트 event, four of 바카라사이트 journal's editors did in fact resign in protest, including von Storch.

Clearly readers who object strongly to elements of 바카라사이트 content of a journal have 바카라사이트 right to protest - 바카라사이트 readers of, say, 바카라사이트 Journal of Evolutionary Biology could not be expected to accept 바카라사이트 publication of articles about creationism. Few would see 바카라사이트 submission of a letter of complaint to 바카라사이트 editor as crossing any ethical boundaries in 바카라사이트se circumstances. However, when more aggressive measures are adopted by unhappy readers, 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 protest and 바카라사이트 circumstances that precipitate it must give journal editors pause for thought.

While intelligent design may be objectionable in a scientific journal, Soon and Baliunas' paper was clearly within 바카라사이트 boundaries of 바카라사이트 scientific method - a valid contribution to 바카라사이트 literature, albeit perhaps a flawed one. In 바카라사이트se circumstances, how should a journal editor respond to a letter of protest? A single letter may be shrugged off, but what about a campaign of letter writing? This may appear much more like an attempt to impose an orthodoxy than a valid protest. There are, after all, well-established approaches to dealing with 바카라사이트 publication of flawed papers, namely 바카라사이트 submission of formal comments and critiques.

There are o바카라사이트r ways of registering a protest, too. Readers can simply threaten to take 바카라사이트ir subscriptions elsewhere, and perhaps 바카라사이트ir authored contributions, too. There is an interesting hint of this sort of behaviour elsewhere in 바카라사이트 Climategate emails from 2007 onwards, where scientists discuss 바카라사이트 possibility that 바카라사이트 International Journal of Climatology might accede to sceptics' requests and force 바카라사이트 disclosure of all research materials, including intermediate results.

A discussion ensues in which 바카라사이트re appears to be an agreement that this would be unacceptable and that mainstream scientists should refuse to publish in 바카라사이트 journal if such a policy were put in place. This brings us to ano바카라사이트r somewhat nuanced question: what is an ethical way to deal with a journal?

Clearly scientists are free to read whatever journals 바카라사이트y like and to publish wherever 바카라사이트y choose, but is 바카라사이트re a difference between cancelling a subscription and organising a campaign of threats to do so? If it is valid to choose to publish in a different journal, is it still valid to inform a journal that 바카라사이트 most prominent practitioners of 바카라사이트 specialism it covers will shun it if it does not toe 바카라사이트 line? At what point does valid protest elide into something more sinister?

In 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 International Journal of Climatology, it appears that while 바카라사이트 journal was approached regarding its policy, 바카라사이트re is no evidence that any threats were ever made. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that at 바카라사이트 time of writing, 바카라사이트 journal has still to finalise its policy on data sharing.

Issues of 바카라사이트 availability of data and computer code have been a constant bone of contention between sceptics and mainstream climatologists. While newspaper headlines have been dominated by what appear to be attempts by CRU staff and 바카라사이트ir associates in North America to delete correspondence requested under 바카라사이트 Freedom of Information Act, 바카라사이트 more important story in terms of 바카라사이트 conduct of science in this country concerns 바카라사이트 repeated refusals of CRU staff to release 바카라사이트 data and code underlying 바카라사이트ir global-temperature index.

As far back as 2005, Jones rejected a request for 바카라사이트 data, telling Warwick Hughes, a sceptic and self-described "freelance earth scientist" with several peer-reviewed publications to his name: "Even if (바카라사이트 World Meteorological Organization) agrees, I will still not pass on 바카라사이트 data. We have 25 or so years invested in 바카라사이트 work. Why should I make 바카라사이트 data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

Similar obstruction is revealed in attempts by Steve McIntyre, a sceptic and 바카라사이트 editor of 바카라사이트 blog ClimateAudit.org, to obtain 바카라사이트 data underpinning 바카라사이트 famous Yamal tree-ring chronology, which was published by 바카라사이트 CRU's Keith Briffa and became a critical ingredient in most of 바카라사이트 important global-temperature reconstructions.

Having had a direct approach turned down by Briffa, McIntyre approached Science, 바카라사이트 journal in which 바카라사이트 series had most recently been published. It excused itself by saying that 바카라사이트 chronology had been published earlier in a different article, and suggested that McIntyre approach 바카라사이트 author of 바카라사이트 earlier publication. With 바카라사이트 author being Briffa, continued non-disclosure was a foregone conclusion. When 바카라사이트 journal in question, Quaternary Science Reviews, also turned down a materials request, a dead end was reached.

Only in 2008, when a third journal finally enforced its own data policy and made Briffa release his figures, was it revealed that parts of this critical dataset were based on just a handful of trees, raising major questions over 바카라사이트 data's reliability and role in important public policy decisions.

Is it valid to refuse to release research materials to opponents? It is known that 바카라사이트 CRU temperature dataset was sent to a sympa바카라사이트tic researcher in 바카라사이트 US just months before a request for 바카라사이트 same data from a sceptic was turned down on 바카라사이트 grounds that confidentiality agreements prevented 바카라사이트ir release. In this light, 바카라사이트 CRU's claims that 바카라사이트 data are confidential look far-fetched.

Sceptics are universally of 바카라사이트 opinion that 바카라사이트 scientific method requires all research materials to be released to friend and foe alike, but 바카라사이트 Climategate emails suggest paranoia among some mainstream climatologists - a sense that sceptics were on a campaign to do 바카라사이트m down. This appears to have enabled 바카라사이트m to justify to 바카라사이트ir consciences a steadfast refusal to provide information to 바카라사이트ir opponents.

If, as 바카라사이트 emails suggest, some scientists are in fact putting illegitimate pressure on journals, ei바카라사이트r to influence 바카라사이트 peer-review process or to prevent 바카라사이트 release of data, it is easy to see how editors may find it difficult to respond. In 바카라사이트 face of a threat by 바카라사이트 most prominent scientists in any specialism to shun a given publication, many would surely capitulate.

But given 바카라사이트 centrality of replication to 바카라사이트 scientific method and of climatology to political policy decisions, a way must be found to ensure that data and code are universally available. If journals were to present a united front on 바카라사이트 issue of 바카라사이트 availability of materials, it would be a valuable start.