When Sir Muir Russell's inquiry into the goings-on at CRU was announced, many were sceptical of whether the results would be anything other than the traditional civil service whitewash. With that in mind I dropped a message to the CRU press office to try to find out exactly what kind of a review was going to be held.
This is what I asked:
1. Is there any significance in the fact that this is a "review" rather than an "inquiry"?
2. Will the review be open to external observers? Will there be public hearings for example?
3. The first point on the terms of reference in your press release indicate that the review will look at the question of "manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice". This seems very limited in scope. For example, will the review examine the possibility of manipulation of results through the data processing as well as through the data itself? In other words, will it examine code as well as data? Will the review look at the other misdemeanours that are alleged to have taken place, for example attempts by UEA scientists to undermine peer review and other procedures in the journals, rigging of the IPCC review and breaches of its procedures? If not, why not?
5. There is an allusion in one of the emails to the vice chancellor apparently being aware of an attempt to avoid a Freedom of Information request. Will this be considered by the review?
Thanks for your email.
The University has made it clear that all issues arising from allegations as a result of emails stolen from the CRU and published without permission on the web will be considered by an independent review.This will be led by Sir Muir Russell and it is expected that it will report by Spring 2010. Statements regarding the independent review and other related issues are available at: www.uea.ac.uk.
Any further statements will be available from this website and circulated via the wire services.
OK, so we're good on the scope, but we're none the wiser on the nature of the review or inquiry or whatever. I've pressed the, ahem, press officer for a response on the first two points, but he hasn't responded. In seems likely therefore that the inquiry will be held behind closed doors.
I conclude that the intention is to whitewash the affair.
Readers of this blog saw this coming. The results of my survey into sceptic attitudes to Sir Muir were as follows:
I trust him: 2%
I don't trust him: 56%
Don't know: 43%.
This was based on 717 responses, so only 14 people were impressed by Sir Muir's credentials. It was said at the time the review was announced that Sir Muir needed to have the confidence of the sceptic community. It is clear from these results that he doesn't. This, together with the suggestion that he intends to hold the inquiry in private mean that he should really stand down.
He will not do so, of course. He has some whitewash to apply.