Bishop Hill Paul and the pug dog
Apr 28, 2013 Climate: Sceptics Royal Society Under Paul Nurse's stewardship, the Royal Society has taken some, ahem, interesting decisions. Its latest though is quite extraordinary. The society has hilariously decided to award the lucrative Wolfson Research Merit award to Stephan Lewandowsky! Jo Nova has the story.
He’s the psychologist who is expert in an imaginary group of humans called “Climate deniers”. Neither he, nor anyone else has ever met one but he discovered their imaginary motivations by surveying the confused groups who hate them. As you would, right?
It's hard to imagine anything funnier. If Manchester United signed up a three-legged pug dog to play centre forward you wouldn't laugh any less.
First Erlich, now Lewandowsky. What next? Homeopaths? A fellowship for Kim Jong Il? A cabbage patch doll?
I wonder what the fellows make of it?
Bishop Hill
The story was actually broken by Geoff Chambers here.
Reader Comments (64)
GrantB "He, he...... we're sending you Professor Flannery next."
Too late Grant, he's already here, (well, not quite in the UK, but pretty close).
Have a look at the Board of Directors of the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation
http://www.fpa2.com/governance.html
He's there with our Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee, John Gummer, (Lord Deben), also President of GLOBE International.
Some other usual suspects as well, Klaus Topfer, former UNEP exec sec before Steiner, now involved with the Sahara Solar scheme, Desertec.
Also Julia Marton-Lefevre, of IUCN, WRI, former rector of Maurice Strong's UN University of Peace, a Commissioner at James Martin School at Oxford. Its Advisory Council has Crispin Tickell, Lord Stern, Martin Rees, Pascal Lamy, Joe Stiglitz, (Chief Economist Socialist International), Arianna Huffington is a commissioner, as is Lord Patten. Founder James Martin is a former member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the U.S. Department of Defense. It was announced by William Hague on April 9th that the UK Government’s Global Centre for Cyber Security Capacity Building is to be based at the Oxford Martin School.
The network is endless.
Yet another "satire is dead" moment.
James Lane: Thanks for that great Muggeridge story from the Khrushchev visit to Britain of 1956, of which I'd not heard. It's evocative because Muggeridge, like Orwell, was one of the few western journalists not willing to go along with Stalin's deceptions about the Ukranian terror famine in the 1930s when he was stationed in Moscow by the Manchester Guardian - whose bosses deeply loved the dictator and didn't want to know the truth. So although he could see the funny side Mug was acutely aware that there was something darker. Which is precisely how I feel about Dr Lew and his elevation by the RS.
"Neither he, nor anyone else has ever met one"
Well said, Jo - it's a truth widely ignored.
Good piece Bish, but please lay off the homeopaths - I know they're an easy target, but they've relieved my partner from a lot of suffering and have also mended my cat. Some racehorses are known to benefit, too.
And to think one day, sooner than later, all of this will be completely forgotten... bizarre.
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad”
I believe this quote is directly applicable to the Royal Society.
James P,
Homeopathy only works on horses if the owner believes in it - i.e. placebo once removed. The same effect has been observed in dairy cattle suffering from mastitis. Placebo is fine, it works well, except on those too sceptical to believe in the impossible - which homeopathy is in both its claims, i.e. huge dilution sequences increase the 'memory of water' and that something that causes a symptom can cure said symptom simply it not actually being present in something delivered as a 'cure'.
Sometimes I wonder if they just these things to annoy me.
SayNoToFearmongers:-
'...placebo once removed.'
How does that work, then?
Arthur,
Self-delusion. They simply report what they want to see happening. Here's an example: http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19930458605.html
The Royal Society has made similar blunders in the past.
In Edward Dolnick's "The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World," Royal Society meetings of the 1670s are discussed: "Giants like Robert Boyle and Christopher Wren presented their newest work, and so did men such as Sir Kenelm Digby" who presented early findings for an amazing "weapon salve."
Kenelm Digby claimed to have discovered a magical new weapons salve that could cure men injured in duels. The salve had ingredients Dolnick notes are "odd to the modern ear... moss from the skull of an unburied man." But the key was the unusual application. The magical salve was applied to the sword, rather than the person wounded, "even if they were miles apart." Digby cited impressive empirical evidence for the salve's effectiveness. The cure called for the wound itself to be left alone, only to be covered with a clean cloth. (from Edward Dolnick's "The Clockwork Universe" p. 50-52).
Greg - interesting story but isn't the difference that Lew is known and shown to be junk at right now? Or was that also the case with Sir Digby and his salve? Was he only given credit/attention on the basis of cronyism?
As Bish points out - just what do the Fellows (and Members) make of an award that reflects so badly on everything their Society is supposed to stand for? And what about other recipients of the Wolfson awards - how does it reflect on them? IMO it's time somebody showed some backbone over this.
I think the Kenelm Digby is fun plus is example of experimental success from "bold" theories (even silly ones). The salve worked because of misdirection. It stopped the doctors of the time from touching the wound with their dirty hands.
Clearly the Royal Society is politicized now. But whether funds come from the government or from enthusiastic and well-meaning (wealthy) subscribers and sponsors, the research tends to follow the enthusiasms of funders.
It would be interesting to review the earlier work that allegedly 'merited' this promotion. Judging from his latest efforts, Lewandowsky is neither the brightest bulb in the chandelier nor particularly careful about the methods that lead to the papers that he seeks to publish.
As for the timing issue, while it is very likely that the Bristol/RS deal has been in the works for quite a while, the controversy about his work has been on foot for many months. It is nonsense to suggest that it could not have been stopped, or at least postponed, if either Bristol or the RS had serious reservations when the trouble began last year. Clearly, they chose to ignore the bad news and go full steam ahead.