w.

mt

I wonder whether control of the pursestrings is the difference. We don’t get much grant money in economics, and it’s perfectly possible to make a good career entirely without it. Thus, we aren’t scared of the big names (well, some of them do edit journals, but at least it’s only one journal each and they only get flattered in submissions to their own journal). I gather that in climate science, rude questions about the emperor’s clothes results in loss of grant money and destruction of one’s career. The consequence is predictable.

“The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results.”

Of particular interest for the interests of this blog is the section in column 3 of page 298 of the issue in which discusses the ramifications of the guideline on the sharing of research material. The society’s guideline’s prescribe ” … unique material used in studies being reported must be available to qualified scientists for bona fide research purposes…” This principle appears to me to be reflected in the ICO’s decision and would require the sharing of data sets in climate science.

However the analysis continues with the presentation of a case study that was presented to a panel of established scientists. The case study posited a young scientist who had developed a mouse that could be sued as a model for schizophrenia. She intended to use this mouse in further studies and as a basis for establishing her career. However, the case study also posited that she had received a request from a major established researcher for a number of mice. The established researcher, with his ample research facilities, would be well able to perform the experiments that she was planning and do them before she could. he could thus take the greater part of the value of her work and short circuit the establishment of her career. The case study was presented to the panel of established scientists and they all concurred that she should not supply the mice regardless of the ethical guideline of the society.

The case study presents the conundrum of scientific openness versus the right of someone to benefit from the fruits of their own labor. The guideline is intended to benefit the progress of the whole of science but it is countered by its effect on the rights of the individual scientist.

This to me indicates that the use of the model of scientific research and publishing is not appropriate for a project such as that assigned to the IPCC for AGW. The use of independent researchers each with their own intellectual property rights runs counter to the sharing, as recognized in the neuroscience society guidelines, that is necessary for scientific progress. There are other models available for the organization of projects beyond that adopted by the IPCC. The organization of large space missions, particle accelerator construction, etc. are examples that spring to mind. These avoid the issue of IPR

Hi, Willis: It’s likely that speakers of bad character will not choose to adopt the communication strategy we lay out in this paper. The core of the strategy consists in the speaker’s committing him/herself to a long-term relationship with the audience, and in making him/herself vulnerable to them in ways that they can reliably enforce. A speaker who was planning something bad would be unlikely to be willing to create conditions in which they could be caught.

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, it emphasizes the difficulties with your work as regarding climate science.

You are looking at it from the point of view of a speaker who wants to increase how much the audience trusts them. It is a valid and valuable point of view. But that situation, of a honest speaker who wants to show people he’s trustworthy, is not where we are today.

Instead, we are in a situation where (to use your example) the audience has been shown evidence that the speaker has engaged in unscientific, unethical, and possibly illegal actions and practices. Not only that, but the speaker refuses to take any responsibility or admit any wrongdoing. Far from being accountable, the speaker refuses to answer any and all questions about his actions. And to add insult to injury, the speaker’s co-workers refuse to say anything bad about the speaker, and deflect all inquiries.

Now, you study the issues of trust … so what is your recommendation for our situation?

You see what I mean about the difficulties regarding your work and climate science? We don’t face the problem you are aiming to solve.

On the other hand, if there was a bad person, his or her willingness to undertake such a vulnerability might be a sign of repentance or conversion, right?

Oh, goodness, dear lady, thank you very much, I needed a good laugh, the idea of that happening in climate science is hilarious.

In any case, as an outsider to your field of study, let me say that I find your use of the term “vulnerability” to be, well, kinda squicky. If you think you’ll gain adherents by advising “vulnerability” I predict a small following.

I do think it is a matter of terminology, however, and not substance. Let me suggest that you do a global search and replace, and substitute the word “accountability” instead. I have absolutely no desire to be vulnerable to the audience, that’s a rhinestone cowboy foolishness I avoid. I do, however, consider myself accountable for my words and actions.

w.