Tuesday
Sep072010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Call for new UK research integrity org
Sep 7, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Russell Regulation Nature's Great Beyond blog notes calls for a new body to be set up to oversee UK research integrity. According to a report from the Research Integrity Futures Working Group there's a problem at the moment:
Current UK arrangements are sometimes portrayed as less than transparent, with examples of bad practice ‘swept under the carpet’,” warns the group’s newly released report. “And there is limited evidence to contradict that view.”
You don't say.
Reader Comments (11)
"clarifying what should be considered as malpractice, misconduct and poor
practice"
Does this need clarifying? Hints & tips on how to nail them may be more of a step forward.
From the report, which is wide-ranging (there are problems in many areas of science):
Funding pitch:-
"Finch’s group want a new body funded with £400,000 a year from the government. This would have no regulatory function but could offer advice and collect data on integrity issues. It would also build on the work of the current UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), which is at present only funded until October this year."
To help the no longer funded poachers to become gamekeepers? Sarc/off
Would anybody out there be able to explain why GB is being made the whipping boy for the sins and omissions of a global problem?
"The report does not single out any specific incidents of misconduct, nor does it cite sources for the suggestion that the United Kingdom might have a larger problem than other nations."
That must be a relief to a lot of people.
Phillip,
That particular line caught my eye too:
"The report does not single out any specific incidents of misconduct..."
Maybe we could help them out a little.
Ross Perot famously said
Also from the report:
"misrepresentation of data, for example suppression of relevant findings and/or data, or knowingly, recklessly or by gross negligence, presenting a flawed interpretation of data"
Do such things occur? How very shocking.
Here's an amusing piece on 'Ethics and the Engineer'...with a contribution by none other than Professor Geoffrey ' I'm not pompous' Boulton, OBE, FRS, FRSE, Vice-Principal, University of Edinburgh and Regius Professor of Geology:
http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Ethics_transcripts.pdf
Some quotes: "However, I am also still a practising scientist, working on issues such as climate change and nuclear waste disposal, in both of which the ‘are you certain?’ and ‘is it safe?’ questions offer temptations to simplify what is known and what is understood, and to skate over the uncertainties, in order to make a point in debate, or move the argument on."
"Arguably, the scientist should be Janus-faced, facing in two directions, with two sets of ethical responsibilities."
"Such processes are often hidden behind statements such as ‘the science suggests that this should be done’, or ‘that should be done’. In practice, however, the science is often wrapped up in unstated values of which we scientists ourselves are sometimes not aware."
"Exploiting this understanding in a society that has lost old habits of deference has become increasingly problematic such that the rules of engagement - between governors, the governed and the scientists and engineers and medics – need to change."
Who better to lead an inquiry into the CRU than Boulton, the ethics expert, long time UEA alumni, with an enthusiastically activist stance on man made warming, and intriguingly condescending ideas about limiting information transmission to the non-deferential governed masses.
Wasn't this the arguement that saw the set up of the IPCC - a one stop shop for the promotion of climate alarmism.
I dont know about Janus faced, sounds more like Hugh Janus to me.