I got a review back on a paper questioning what I meant when I claimed that a certain result was obtained by performing a symbolic integration using Maple. You sometimes have to read to tea leaves to find out what a reviewer is getting at with such a question. But mindful that a paper is only a partial disclosure of what was done to get a result owing to page limits, I answered that Maple is a commercial software package for symbolic solution of equations (what do I know, maybe the reviewer has heard of Mathematica but not Maple), and in the rebuttal to the review, I attached the Maple “formula sheet”, essentially the source code.

The Associate Editor responds something to the effect that people know what Maple is, (what do I know, maybe the reviewer has heard of Mathematica but not Maple), and that my scientific integrity was not being questioned.

I mean, what is the problem? If the reviewer questions the intermediate steps used for a formula in a paper, and the author comes up with the one-page input to Maple along with a comment section explaining the meaning of the variables, what is so extraordinary about any of this? What is so extraordinary about providing “back story” to reviewers given the space limitations of many journals?

However, what I find more interesting and a bit bizzare is that arguments of IP ownership would even arise in the context of published abstracts and manuscripts.

It’s not bizarre at all when you consider why they would use the IP argument.

If the author of the abstract feels they own an IP that will be infringed by disclosure to other researchers then the scope of information based on the IP should be excluded from publication.

Hehe, I’m also pretty sure they aren’t really worried about being infringed upon. They simply don’t want folks like Steve digging into their work. It often has embarassing repercussions.

If excluding it means they have no abstract to publish then so be it – they have nothing to publish.

Indeed. Too bad many involved in “climate science” would rather do the opposite.

Mark

Keep in mind that the Berne Convention usually only comes into play in a case involving international infringement. Typically, it isn’t cited in cases where the infringement occurs inside the country of the work’s origin simply because the Convention recognizes that each country has their own IP laws that apply internally. Signatories agree that there are some common rules of law that apply universally but in the case of the U.S. those common rules of law have long existed.

Owning a number of registered IP’s, I find the legal discussion interesting. However, what I find more interesting and a bit bizzare is that arguments of IP ownership would even arise in the context of published abstracts and manuscripts. If the author of the abstract feels they own an IP that will be infringed by disclosure to other researchers then the scope of information based on the IP should be excluded from publication. If excluding it means they have no abstract to publish then so be it – they have nothing to publish. By publishing the abstract containing the information, they set precedence through the age old tenents of scientific research that all of the methodologies are available to disclosure, including the concerned IP.

Mark

Given that Mann’s stated intellectual property is computer code, it would be protected as an IP under U.S. copyright law. Searching the U.S. Copyright Office records, I can’t find where Mann has copyrighted any computer code nor has even attempted to file for copyright protection.

While I agree with the general point you have made regarding Mann’s IP argument, this point is a bit incorrect. At least, Berne Convention signatory countries no longer require to registration of literary/artistic works to obtain copyright protection. It is automatic the moment you create the work (assuming it is original). Copyright protection via registration simply makes it an easier task to defend should any litigation occur.

Mark

Thank you for your clarification on Mann’s willingness to disclose more code than others. It is concerning that there remains the others have taken the route of precedence of non-disclosure. It seems that for those individuals, their reasoning may be that the results of their work need no validation as their conclusions align well with the accepted knowledge of the day. Their borrowing precept upon precept and repeating the same errors of methodology, absent a means of independent verification, serves only to reinforce a form of knowledge that will fail partially or wholly when the voice of wisdom – the momentarily silent lambs – demand that the knowledge be justified.

Fortunately, not all lambs are silent as you have demonstrated. Thank you for your contributions to the process of scientific inquiry. I hope the other lambs will see they need not be silent and follow by your example.

Also, thanks for the snip of my last sentence. In retrospect, I would snip it myself if I could. Disclosure, reproducibility, and verification are indeed a passionate issue for some (like me), sometimes leading to careless generalized statements – your point, as well as Gary’s is well received and appreciated.

Yes, I agree with your comment. I’m assuming it was partly (or in full?) directed at my comment. Whenever I re-read what I tend to send in emails to people or posts on the internet I always tend to cringe at the thought of how my tone and opinion comes across. I take back the over-arching “All climate scientists are bad” tone, and will stick with my final point about raw data being more powerful than trends.

I agree with Gary Strand’s point here. Blog policy asks people not to “pile on” by extrapolating from the conduct of some to the conduct of all.

Readers should also bear in mind that such “piling on” comments are counter-productive to the point that they wish to make.

HAving said that, as I observed in an online comment, it is my view that the “silence of the lambs” is something that can be held against a larger Community. As I observed in a post by this title, there was no way that any dendro was going to criticize Mann et al 2008 for – for example, using dendro proxies upside-down. A number of them were aware of problems and kept silent.

When Mann attracted national attention by refusing to “disclose his algorithm”, no climate scientist or professional association stood up and said “C’mon, Mike, this isn’t doing any of us any good. Just release your algorithm and drive on.” The silence of the lambs. But when Mann, who had voluntarily appeared in 2003 before a congressional subcommittee to admonish them, was asked to produce the code, all hell broke lose. Every climate science association you can think of stood up and objected – without any sense of the irony that they had previously stood by silently. NAS offered to investigate the contentious “verification r2″ question for the House subcommittee and then wrote terms of reference for their panel that excluded this issue and ultimately did not investigate why this statistic was not reported in MBH98.