Comments on: World Conference on Research Integrity to Foster Responsible Research

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:32:51 +0000

I would not say that Hockey Team members perform decently on many of these dimensions, but of course it requires detailed expositions (such as found on many CA threads) to elucidate and substantiate such failings.

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:29:34 +0000

Searching about to see if anything ever came of this effort, or if it was merely a ‘Yes, Minster’ check box to pretend ‘sure we all care about research integrity, objectivity, etc., ho ho’ (recalling BBC concern with faux impartiality). There is this, very broad principles directed toward other bodies:

http://www.esf.org/media-centre/ext-single-news/article/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity-endorsed-by-european-science-foundations-gove.html

The code addresses the proper conduct and principled practice of systematic research in the natural and social sciences and the humanities in Europe. Whilst the new code is not intended to replace existing national or academic guidelines, it sets out a list of principles that these national guidelines should consider, including:

Honesty in communication;
Reliability in performing research;
Objectivity;
Impartiality and independence;
Openness and accessibility;
Duty of care;
Fairness in providing references and giving credit;
Responsibility for the scientists and researchers of the future.

By: Ivo Vegter | Ivo Vegter

Ivo Vegter | Ivo Vegter — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:36:09 +0000

[...] So the European Science Foundation holds a conference on research integrity, to “foster responsible research”. And guess who’s not invited? [...]

By: doug

doug — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:17:35 +0000

#11

I had a similar item made in Indonesia with fine “Amerikan Warkmanship”

By: Jan Pompe

Jan Pompe — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:01:56 +0000

#29 Steve Mosher

Shouldn’t you have posted that in “Spot the hockey stick”?

By: Nasif Nahle

Nasif Nahle — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:29:01 +0000

# 3

Ross McKitrick,

Could it be another “scientific” consensus? I think it could drive to some means of proscription on “dissenting” or unorthodox voices.

By: Nasif Nahle

Nasif Nahle — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:10:42 +0000

# 9

Mark O,

The conference had the signature of UCS:
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/

# 42

M. Simon,

I agree. Syun-Ichi Akasofu wrote: “In the meantime, the integrity of climatology as a respectable science has to be rehabilitated by bringing it back from its present confused state and separating it entirely from politics”.

By: bernie

bernie — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:46:44 +0000

Douglas:
I have read your materials. I too see “Yes, Minister” as a black comedy and the quintessential guidebook to how organizations that do not have to perform in order to survive, i.e., bureaucracies, operate.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:08:11 +0000

I think that they were referring to Doug as well. They seem to have got the entire reference bollockesed up and as, Doug observes, had little interest in actually hearing what the problems were at field level.

By: Douglas J. Keenan

Douglas J. Keenan — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:08:08 +0000

Re #31 (Dave). I am indeed Canadian (though some journalists have referred to me as being British). The last time I owned comic books, though, I think my age was single digit; so perhaps it is someone else. Re #16 (bernie). I was not invited to the conference. Yet I have publicly and explicitly alleged that the work of three scientists is fraudulent (P.I. Kuniholm, S.W. Manning, W.-C. Wang); see http://www.informath.org/apprise/a4200.htm I would not expect to be invited though, or even welcome. The purpose of the Lisbon conference was not to advance research integrity. The purpose was to advance procedures, processes, and techniques for handling allegations of fraud in a way that would appear to be addressing the problems, while in fact burying the problems more deeply. I.e. Yes, Minister.