Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
of Chemistry (CRU 42)
SUMMARY
— It is essential that the public and all
non-specialists remain truly confident in the scientific method
to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong decisions
can be made. Correspondingly, it is in the interest of scientists
and the public that society as a whole has an understanding and
an appreciation of science. — Access to reliable, up-to-date
information is vital to advancing research and enabling the discovery
or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information
is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where
progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication
between different speciality areas. — The RSC firmly believes
that the benefits of scientific data being made available and
thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end,
scientific information should be made available on request as
outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.
SUBMISSION
1. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
welcomes the opportunity to submit formal written evidence to
the consultation on the disclosure of climate change data from
the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia.
2. The RSC is the UK Professional Body for
chemical scientists and an international Learned Society for advancing
the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over 46,000 members
worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business,
our activities span education and training, conferences and science
policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public.
3. The document has been written from the
perspective of the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is noteworthy
that the University of East Anglia is a member of the RSC Partnership
Scheme, however this in no way constitutes a conflict of interest.
The RSC's Royal Charter obliges it "to serve the public interest"
by acting in an independent advisory capacity, and we would therefore
be very happy for this submission to be put into the public domain.
What are the implications of the disclosures for
the integrity of scientific research?
4. The apparent resistance of researchers
from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East
Anglia (UEA) to disclose research data has been widely portrayed
as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research.
The true nature of science dictates that research is transparent
and robust enough to survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to
disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific
results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny,
even if this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching
consequences for the reputation of science as a whole, with the
ability to undermine the public's confidence in science.
5. It is essential that the public and all
non-specialists remain truly confident in the scientific method
to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong decisions
can be made. Correspondingly, it is in the interest of scientists
and the public that society as a whole has an understanding and
an appreciation of science. The RSC strongly supports the dissemination
of chemical knowledge to foster and encourage the growth and application
of the chemical sciences, as stated in its Royal Charter. This
includes the dissemination of scientific knowledge as a means
to advance public understanding and the learning of science.
6. The dissemination of scientific information
is central to progressing scientific developments, as it is based
on a sound knowledge of preceding research.[55]
Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing
research and enabling the discovery or development of solutions
to global issues. Sharing information is especially important
in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent
on willing and effective communication between different speciality
areas.
7. It is also imperative that scientific
information is made available to the wider community for scrutiny:
the validity and essence of research relies upon its ability to
stand up to review. In fact, advances in science frequently occur
when the prevailing view is challenged by informed scepticism,
this is fundamental to the scientific method and should be encouraged,
even if controversial. The RSC firmly believes that the benefits
of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny
outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information
should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom
of Information Act. Furthermore, research needs to be presented
in an accurate and reliable manner in the correct context in order
to optimise this process. It may also be necessary to incorporate
an independent auditing system into peer review with the ability
to demand access to raw data sets to ensure best practices are
being adhered to.
8. With the increased use of electronic
media, access to information is widespread for scientists and
the public alike. While this is a great benefit to society, the
quality and validity of information available raises complex problems
as valid scientific information and general opinion are presented
side by side. The inability to decipher which information is legitimate,
results in confusion, misinterpretation and may lead to mistrust
of "science". There needs to be a clearer understanding
in the public domain of what constitutes a reliable source, including
an appreciation for the process that is used for disseminating
research and the advantages of peer review.
9. The peer review system is central to
the credibility of science: its purpose to prevent the dissemination
of unwarranted claims and unacceptable interpretations. Formally
published scientific research is subject to this authoritative
process whereby a community of qualified, impartial experts examine
the information and possess the ability to prevent publication.
Authors generally protect their data until it has been peer-reviewed
and published in a formal publication due to the competitive nature
of research.
10. The issue of misinformation in the public
domain must also be tackled. Just as the scientific community
must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree
must also provide a clear and verifiable backing for their argument,
if they wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreements
occur, the validity of the analysis must be established before
credence can be given to any opinion. Increased understanding
of the process of scientific research, firstly in the government,
but also within the media and general public, is vital in order
to foster a more open sharing of information.
11. Support from the scientific community
is needed to provide context and to explain the process by which
conclusions are reached. Encouraging scientists to openly engage
with the public can only be achieved if researchers are given
the necessary backing in the face of any unfounded arguments against
their work. This support must come from the highest levels, sending
out a strong message on the importance of scientific methodology
and research and promoting open sharing of information between
scientists and the wider community.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent
Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
12. The terms of reference and scope of
the independent review are adequate, although some wider reaching
aspects must also be examined. The effect on other researchers
working in this area such as independent researchers, as well
as those collaborating with CRU, should be explored. The impact
of this incident on the public perception of the CRU and UEA as
a whole should also be considered as a measuring stick for the
implications of such actions in the public domain. The manner
in which the findings from the items set out are interpreted and
applied will determine their value.
13. As has been set out in the review, it
is necessary to investigate the email exchanges which were discovered
along with other relevant CRU information to establish whether
data have been manipulated or suppressed. This is, not only needed
in order to identify any unacceptable behaviour, but also to verify
the results which have been published. This is vital in clarifying
the severity of the acts carried out by those scientists at the
CRU involved, ie whether it was a misguided protection of their
work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.
14. The review of practices surrounding
CRU's use of peer review and dissemination of data should be used
to shed light on how these comply with established best scientific
practice. Any failings in this area should be examined in the
context of the research methods used and any deviations should
be assigned either to the individual researchers or to inadequate
updating of the best practice to suit research in the digital
age.[56]
This will beget more valuable information on the motivation and
the reasoning behind the conduct of researchers at CRU.
15. Research institutions should review
established protocols regarding the management of, and access
to, research data to ensure that they remain up to date and clear.
This process must be developed in collaboration with researchers
so that its importance can be understood. The current practices
in CRU and UEA must be examined to ensure the unit and the institution
fulfil public regulations and that they offer support to researchers
to ensure compliance.
16. The review of the security issues surrounding
the release of information is an important internal issue for
CRU and UEA. Furthermore, the RSC supports investigations into
the highly irregular manner in which information was obtained
from the researchers.
How independent are the other two international
data sets?
17. From the information available, the
RSC cannot comment on this issue.
February 2010
55 Although serendipitous advances are also well recognised Back
56
"Ensuring the integrity, accessibility and stewardship of
research data in the digital age" Committee on Ensuring the
Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age; National
Academy of Sciences, 2009. Back
| 
