Conclusions and recommendations
The Scientific Appraisal Panel (SAP)
1. It is our view
that the most reasonable interpretation of the UEA press notice
of 11 February 2010 and the Vice-Chancellor's statement on
1 March 2010 was that the Scientific Assessment Panel would examine
the quality of the science as well as the integrity. In the event,
Lord Oxburgh and his colleagues on the Panel carried out a narrower
inquiry that focussed on the Climatic Research Unit's methodologies
and the integrity of the research. Had the scope and purpose of
the SAP been made clear from the beginning of February it would
have avoided much confusion and the inevitable allegation of manipulation.
(Paragraph 23)
2. We accept that
there was no need to amend the terms of reference of the Independent
Climate Change E-mails Review, as recommendations on best practice
were considered to be included within the remit of the review.
(Paragraph 26)
3. The disparity in
length between the SAP and ICCER reports is striking. When compared
to the ICCER, the SAP report—a mere five pages—reads
like an executive summary, with none of the detail of the ICCER.
From Lord Oxburgh's evidence to us, the report does not appear
to explain the detailed work carried out by the SAP. That in itself
does not invalidate the SAP report but it does foster an impression
that it was not as thorough as the ICCER and was produced quickly
in an attempt to be helpful to UEA. (Paragraph 33)
4. In the interest
of openness and transparency, supporting documents including the
working documents of Professor Kelly and others on the Panel should
have been made publicly available alongside the report and should
now be made available. Unfortunately, Professor Kelly's comments—which
have been published in isolation online—can now be read
out of context. Had these been published alongside the comments
of the other Panel members with an outline of roundtable discussions
we consider that this would not have been a problem. The importance
of Professor Kelly's work is that it clears CRU of deliberately
falsifying their figures but, as the SAP report put it, "the
potential for misleading results arising from selection bias is
very great in this area". (Paragraph 39)
Oral hearings
5. Our preference
would have been, like our predecessors, for evidence to have been
taken in public. We accept, however, that Sir Muir's reasons for
not doing this were reasonable. He chose to make detailed references
of the scientific information relevant to what CRU scientists
had actually done, in order to ensure that there was a robust
written record. We do not consider, however, that this process
would have been hampered by conducting the interviews in public.
(Paragraph 42)
Selection of publications
6. In our view, the
debate about the 11 publications examined by the Scientific Assessment
Panel (SAP) is frustrating. While there is no doubt that the papers
chosen were central to CRU's work and went to the heart of the
criticisms directed at CRU, the allegations that certain areas
of climate science such as key multiproxy temperature reconstructions
were purposely overlooked could have been disregarded if the SAP
had set out its process of selection in a more transparent manner.
(Paragraph 49)
Publication arrangements
7. While we accept
that it was not unreasonable for ICCER to inform UEA of the contents
of its report in advance of publication, the fact is that this
was open to misinterpretation. (Paragraph 51)
Disclosure of data and methodologies
8. The disclosure
of raw data and sufficient details of the computer programmes
is paramount in encouraging people to question science in the
conventional way, challenging existing work, enabling validation
of it and coming forward with new hypotheses. We welcome the ICCER's
recommendation to UEA on the provision of a formal metadata repository,
and are pleased that CRU is investing in posts to archive their
data efficiently. We hope that no obstacles, financial or otherwise,
will get in the way of CRU pursuing this. (Paragraph 58)
9. Lord Oxburgh said
that CRU was not able to make accurate reconstructions in every
case, particularly of old material. Professor Davies from UEA
confirmed this but said CRU scientists would be able to do this
given a number of weeks. This is precisely the sort of work we
would have expected the Scientific Assessment Panel to conduct—had
it been less concerned about rushing to publish its report—during
its inquiry into methodologies and the integrity of research at
CRU. (Paragraph 61)
10. We consider that
data disclosed in publications should be accompanied by sufficient
detail of computer programmes, specific methodology or techniques
used to analyse the data, such that another expert could repeat
the work. Providing the means for others to question science in
this way will help guard against not only scientific fraud but
also the spread of misinformation and unsustainable allegations.
(Paragraph 66)
Peer review
11. The conclusions
reached by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER)
are in line with our predecessor Committee's findings that "the
evidence they saw did not suggest that Professor Jones was trying
to subvert the peer review process and that academics should not
be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
We stand by this conclusion and are satisfied with the detailed
analysis of the allegations by the ICCER. (Paragraph 77)
Freedom of Information
12. We are concerned
that the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review did not fully
investigate the serious allegation relating to the deletion of
e-mails. We find it unsatisfactory that we are left with a verbal
reassurance from the Vice-Chancellor that the e-mails still exist.
On the basis of the ICO's announcement made on 7 July 2010, it
is reasonable to conclude that there was a breach of EIR by a
failure to provide a response within 20 working days. On the allegation
that e-mails were deleted to frustrate requests for information,
a firm conclusion has proved elusive. UEA have accepted that there
were weaknesses in their system, and in pockets of their culture,
for dealing with requests for information. We are pleased that
they are working towards rectifying this. (Paragraph 89)
13. The broader confusion
about how FoI legislation should be applied to scientific research
must be resolved. The Information Commissioner's Office has made
some progress, but this should now be pursued as a matter of urgency.
The Government Chief Scientific Adviser will also be looking at
this issue. We regard this matter as sufficiently serious that
we want to see it resolved. We hope the Information Commissioner's
Office will provide clear guidance on the application of FoI to
scientific research by the start of the new academic year in September
2011. (Paragraph 93)
Moving forward at UEA
14. The disclosure
of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and
challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world
of science. Much rests on the accuracy and integrity of climate
science. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held.
It is, however, important to bear in mind the considered view
of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John
Beddington, that "the general issues on overall global temperature,
on sea level and so on, are all pretty unequivocal". While
we do have some reservations about the way in which UEA operated,
the SAP review and the ICCER set out clear and sensible recommendations.
In our view it is time to make the changes and improvements recommended
and with greater openness and transparency move on. (Paragraph
98)
| 
