|
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.[1] 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, i.e. 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.[2]
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.
Royal Society of Chemistry
February 2010
1 although serendipitous advances are also
well recognised
[2] "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
| 