WRITTEN
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
BY THE
INDEPENDENT CLIMATE
CHANGE E-MAILS
REVIEW (UEA REVIEWS
07)
REPORT FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE, PUBLISHED 31 MARCH 2010
Response from the Independent Climate Change E-Mails
Review (CCER)
1. The CCER welcomes the Committee's recognition
that the Review is independent and that none of its members have
links to the CRU or the IPCC.
2. The CCER has seen no need to amend its
terms of reference. It notes in particular the Committee's wish
to see the Review recommend future best practice. The Review has
always understood its remit to include such recommendations, and
therefore sees no need for any change in this respect.
3. The CCER agrees with the Committee on
the importance of access to expertise concerning peer review.
It has addressed this by commissioning work from the editor of
a leading peer review journal and from the Chair of the Committee
on Publication Ethics to ensure that Review members have a clear
understanding of the relevant issues as they consider the evidence
presented to them. It should also be remembered that the scientific
members of the Review are fully aware of the importance and practice
of peer review through their own extensive work.
4. The CCER shares the Committee's wish
for openness and transparency. It has published all submissions
unless there are legal constraints such as defamation or copyright,
or the submission is abusive. In these cases, the Review has sought
the agreement of the author(s) on the means of enabling the submissions
to be obtained directly by those wishing to see them. The great
bulk of the Review's process has been to deal with or canvass
written evidence. Where interviews have taken place, the salient
points have been noted and all the notes will be published.
5. In accordance with its remit, the CCER
will address the particular issues of data availability and peer
review to which the Committee made reference.
6. The CCER noted the Committee's concern
that there should be no unmanaged gaps or overlaps between its
work and that of the Scientific Appraisal Panel. While respecting
the fact that the two reviews were completely independent, CCER
contacted Lord Oxburgh, Chair of the Scientific Appraisal Panel,
to ensure that he was aware of the approach being taken by CCER
to issues that might bear on his work.
7. CCER notes the Committee's proposal that
the conclusions of the review should not be conveyed to the University
of East Anglia in advance of publication. The reason for this
proposal appears to be that to do otherwise might put at risk
the review's impartiality. There is no question of any contact
with the University prior to publication that would influence
the review's conclusions, as distinct from any necessary checking
of factual matters. The Review was commissioned by the University
to report on policies and practices within the University, and
should the Review find matters of concern, then it clearly has
a duty to inform the University. The Committee will also be aware
that natural justice demands that both the University and members
of CRU should be informed directly of any critical findings. Finally,
it is also common practice in public and Parliamentary life for
the subjects of reports to be given embargoed copies of the documents
shortly before publication. The CCER is mindful of the Committee's
recommendation, but it sees no reason to depart from normal practice.
Sir Muir Russell
Chairman, Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review
18 May 2010
| 
