I often get harassed by climate sceptics... It's not like I look for
them, it's just they seem to be drawn to me like moths to a flame.... Not one who gains enjoyment from initiating an
argument but also not one likely to let my opinions and views go left
unsaid, I often unwillingly enter a debate. Agreed, much of the time I'm
left relaying evidence and scientific theory that suggests climate
change is occurring and yes we cause it, met with unaccepting ignorance.
But sometimes a different argument is thrown in, one such argument that
got me thinking was 'those scientists will say anything for money'. I
know, the statement is rash and unthoughtful, and of course I argued
about the stringent control and criticism in science and the openness
that allows such peer review and questioning. But I was left
thinking.... we are just human.
What drives science?
Thought? Observation? or money? All three I would guess, it is however
true that lack of funding means lack of research. You could write the
most beautiful, succinct grant proposal ever seen yet if there is no
future or at least way to gain merit in the future it won't succeed in
receiving funding from one of the various bodies. So, with this in mind,
is it possible that scientists would be fraudulent with data to secure
future funding?
The above statement that originally accosted my thoughts was in
relation to the University of East Anglia's 'Climategate'. A perfect
example of how a slight turn of phrase can cascade through ignorance
into a rolling ball of climate denier shit, showering the general public
with fallacies and just plain untruths. In case a sceptic reads this I
must confirm that following investigations into this incident 'The rigor
and honesty of the scientists was found not to be in doubt' and it was
also found that there was 'no evidence of behaviour that might undermine
the conclusions of the IPCC assessments that human activities are
causing global warming.' An interesting time for science and also a
illustration of just how far we have to go to bridge the gap between
publishing of science and research to the interpretation of it by the
general public. Climate change is undoubtedly a big player in scientific
research at the moment and with that, often the receiver of substantial
funding, but could this really be a motive for fraudulence in science?
I recently read an interesting article on fraud in science by Dr J
Crocker, using Diederik Staple a social psychologist who recently
admitted fabricating much of his data. Social psychology is not a
subject I know much about but the reputable American psychological
Association having published much of his work has now been slowly
withdrawing many of his papers, with early signs suggesting the scale of
his fraud as vast. A fascinating point she brought up was likely
ramifications of committing such a crime. Damaging the careers of
students and colleagues, damaging the reputation of the research body or
University as well as doubts to co-author papers... would you still be
left believing it was worth it? I don't think I would. Apparently
according to Dr Crocker, it only takes a few steps to become comfortable
with you actions before they escalate "dropping a inconvenient data
point- and avoiding discomfort by justifying or rationalising their way
out'. It is however, how the truth outted that I feel is of greatest
importance, the colleagues and researchers that took steps to stop such
misconduct at the risk to their own careers.
I hate to say it.. but these people acted for 'the greater good'.
It may be about morality, or logic or just plain rationality, but
something tells me it is unacceptable. Scientific theory is empirical
and always open to falsification, and although fraud in science has been
shown to occur, the openness of science should combat falsification of
results. One of the biggest threats that such misconduct could have is
to the publics mistrust of science and scientists. One could argue that
'climategate' illustrated the lack of trust already distilled in the
general public, which could only be made worse with such revelations.
Communication and understanding of the scientific medium is our greatest
challenge, but with it comes responsibility for upholding the
definition of science 'organising knowledge in the form of testable
explanations and predictions about the universe' even if the outcomes
are not quite what we expected. Science is fluid and changeable, its
nature is what makes it so facinating. We are constantly moving forward
with new thoughts and theories, so in this respect there are no right answers... just interesting ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment