Monday
Mar242014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill University ethics
Mar 24, 2014 Climate: Sceptics Ethics Greens In yet another astonishing post at Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre reveals that the conclusions of the University of Western Australia's ethics inquiry into Stephan Lewandowsky were written by Lewandowsky himself:
Half an hour later (Oct 15 15:18; FOIT, 9), Lewandowsky replied by adding the sentences bolded below, which add the claim that the University had “considered” my claims and found them to be “baseless” and that his research had been “conducted in compliance with all applicable ethical guidelines”...
Moreover, as Lucia Liljegren notes on Twitter, the university announced that they had held an inquiry that exonerated Lewandowsky, when in fact they had done nothing of the sort.
And apparently there is worse to come.
Reader Comments (75)
This is a perfect example of what I said earlier - despite being sent what we all see as clear evidence, those in "power" see no reason to bother reading it.
Thanks Jeremy - if you have the interest to reply to Mr Alder ("David Alder> Director of Marketing & Communications") I'd be interested to know if that is a view shared by their legal team.
PS - a reason for David:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/21/controversial-paper-linking-conspiracy-ideation-to-climate-change-skepticism-formally-retracted/
Wow, Jeremy, they didn't waste any time circling the wagons at Bristol either.
I never believed that Bristol didn't know what they were getting when they hired him. The controversies about his work were well under way by then. They hired him because they think he is an asset, and that all the ruckus about his work is the product of denier ratbags, such as he identified in his paper. Nice circular argument.
Erich Eich (cheif editor- Psychological Science) suggested to me a comment should be submitted, when I pointed out the factual error in LOG12 (survey non SkS appearance) I had expected the journal/authors to just check, and sort out (ie the LOG12 survey had never been held at SkS) -note the dates.
It is difficult if the authors will not supply data, nor respond to you, or like Lew claim to have had proof, but can't find it any more. (the SkS url - which is impossible, it never existed)
I later Erich him if he would help me in obtaining the information and data, I had previously requested of Lewandowsky and his co-authors, if they refused to (again, or just completely ignored me)
“Dear Barry–Sorry to disappoint, but no. Best, Eric”
On 27/08/2013 10:20 AM, barry.woods wrote:
> Dear Professor Eich
>
> Ok.
>
> I will try to contact Professor Lewandowsky (& UWA) and ask him again.
> If he fails to respond to my requests, will the journal consider
> asking on my behalf?
>
> Best Regards
>
> Barry Woods
> —–Original Message—– From: Eric Eich
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 5:47 PM
> To: barry.woods
> Subject: Re: Word document format – Concerns about LOG12 – “Nasa faked
> the Moon landing…..”, Lewandowsky et al – Psychological Science,
> that I believe require the papers withdrawal
>
> Dear Mr. Woods: It is UWA’s concern, as I’ve already said twice (now
> three times). Please take it up with them (or try again). Best regards,
> Eric Eich
>
> On 2013-08-27 9:25 AM, barry.woods wrote:
>> Sorry, I had actually missed your earlier email, only just the
>> original found it in my spam folder..
>>
>> I am seeking help from Psychological Science journal in obtaining my
>> requests of the authors.
>>
>> As neither Professor Lewandowsky nor UWA will respond to me, will
>> Psychological Science please put my requests for data and information
>> about LOG12 to the authors of the paper.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Barry Woods
>>
jeremypoynton
The date on David Alder's email which you quote, is dated 03/07/2013 11:05.
So is this a reply to an earlier request?
To be honest, I see little value in harrassing BristoL University at this stage - Lew's controversial work was undertaken at UWA, and chances are Bristol had no idea about the manipulation of the ethics approval that Steve McI and others are wading their way through.
I assume that having to retract a paper from a journal is bad for an academic's reputation - if that was somehow to become two papers (as the Moon Hoax paper clearly has several flaws), it would start to look less like an honest mistake and more like a pattern of behaviour.
They will simply spin it as more "evidence" of harassment from the Big Oil Funded Organised Denier Machine.
Ian Blanchard, I strongly disagree. Many serious questions were being raised about the "Moon Hoax" paper at the time that Bristol hired Lewandowsky, and they would have had to have been living at the bottom of a mine shaft not to know about it.
While the details of the ethical approval process had not become clear at that time, many blog commenters raised issues about the ethical framework of the study right from the beginning, including the way that responses were sought and processed, and the assumptions that underlay its design and conclusions.
That is quite apart from the botched methodology and sloppy/misleading analysis of the data, which were also identified very early in the piece.
Bristol not only knew what they were getting, they actively headhunted him and are defending him to the hilt.
In general, Sandy, I agree, however; I did (a couple of years ago) make a complaint about an edition of Panorama based around minimum alcohol pricing (presented by Joan Bakewell).
Initially it was a bit of a fobbing off, but following a few 'conversations' with one of the deputy editors the program was pulled from iPlayer, the most offensive bits were toned down and re-recorded and Sheffield University's ScHARR were 'forced' to amend their website (the nonsense was based on what they choose to call research, but was and still is, in reality nothing more than a prejudice filled model).
It's the exception rather than the rule, but keep at them.
We shouldn't be shocked by this behaviour. It's their essential nature, we shouldn't expect anything else from them.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/a-climate-of-deception-deceit-lies-and-outright-dishonesty/
Pointman
Are all academics so far up their own a*ses that they think the rest of us won't notice their 4th form debating society antics?
Or did they just never grow up by joining the outside world?
the UWA logo appeared on the Skeptical Guide to the Skeptics Handbook.. (rebutall to Jo Nova's book)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/ScientificGuideSkepticsA5.pdf
Lewandowsky got John Cook to write it,(and to fly in) as Nova (author Skeptics Handbook)Watts were doing a presentation at UWA in June 2010.
Lew organised a counter event the same week here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Perth-forum-on-climate-change-all-the-gory-details.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Perth-event-tonight-public-forum-on-climate-change.html
Anne Young (SkS and Shaping tomorrows world contributor) wrote up the Nova/Watts event here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-account-of-the-Watts-event-in-Perth.html
and Lew/Cook had three people handing out copies of Cook rebuttal to Jo's book at Watts/Nova meeting.
(only fair ;-) !! LOL, as Jo had handed out copies of her the Skeptics Handbook) at a meeting Lewandowsky was speaking at the previous year - Dec 09)
but, clearly, Lewandowsky (or Cook) are not neutral reserchers,independant of the debate, witnessing from a far. both are active players on one side. And Lewandowsky (and Cook, see SKS) do not like Jo much, Lewandowsky has a slide that year September, discussing results/data of LOG 12(years before publication), basically describing Jo as a hyper emotional irrational conspiracy theorist
http://monash.edu/sustainability-institute/assets/documents/seminars/msi-seminar_10-09-23_lewandowsky_presentation.pdf
Johanna
My point regarding Bristol is more pragmatic - what do you hope to achieve by raising questions with them? They haven't done anything much wrong other than in hiring a Prof who everyone here considers a wrong 'un, and bombarding them with e-mails and letters of complaint about work that was not undertaken under their remit is only likely to paint Lew as being a victim in their eyes.
Now, pursuing UWA, and in particular the manner in which the ethical approval was obtained (and how Lew's excuses for going outside the normal ethical constraints bear an uncanny resemblance to the reasoning used by Phil Jones at UEA to almost certainly illegally evade FOI requests) is a path worth pursuing.
Does anyone know the funding source(s) for Lewandowsky's work? I would imagine that if there was a grant (whether research council or private) that was supposed to finance the originally proposed research (i.e. the project originally described, whereby Perth residents were to be questioned regarding their understanding of time series), the funding body would be interested in both the modification to the research and the apparent flouting of normal ethical conventions by UWA.
jeremypoynton
The date on David Alder's email which you quote, is dated 03/07/2013 11:05.
So is this a reply to an earlier request?
Mar 25, 2014 at 11:24 AM | Greg Cavanagh
=============================================================
Yes. When I heard that Bristol Uni (I lived in Bristol for over 20 years until 2005) had hired Lewy, I wrote to his boss, the Vice Chancellor and his PA detailing my concerns, and noting that I hoped that this did not rebound on the University. The email was their reply. Since then I have made sure that they are kept up to date with all new info on Lewy and his scams. I'm getting no reply, but the emails stay in my Sent folder for the day when they do find shit hitting their academic fan.
We live in hope. And salute Steve McIntyre, the Pit Bull Terrier of Climate Science. Once his jaws clamp down on an offender...
To be honest, I see little value in harrassing BristoL University at this stage
Mar 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM | Ian Blanchard
==============================================
I'm not harassing them. I just send them links to updates, and where appropriate, excerpts from said link.
Now, pursuing UWA, and in particular the manner in which the ethical approval was obtained (and how Lew's excuses for going outside the normal ethical constraints bear an uncanny resemblance to the reasoning used by Phil Jones at UEA to almost certainly illegally evade FOI requests) is a path worth pursuing.
Mar 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM | ian Blanchard
=========================================================
McIntyre is doing just that, and has politely asked to be left to get on with it.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/24/lewandowsky-ghost-wrote-conclusions-of-uwa-ethics-investigation-into-hoax/#comment-523113
"In earlier incidents, readers of various blogs piled onto early criticism of Lewandowsky and submitted a number of complaints that generally were too angry and poorly focused. These were easily dismissed by the University and built up resistance, diminishing the effectiveness of my own complaint.
Unless readers feel that they are in a position to file documents that are at least as good as mine, I would prefer that they not contact the University. This would be worth conveying to WUWT readers as well."
Meanwhile, I feel it is perfectly legit to simply update Bristol as more salient details about Lewy appear. Why should they not know? And as my taxes fund the man, why should I not keep them posted?
I don't think you should be "updating" them simply because it gives them a heads up to what's coming.
Mailman
Interesting parallel from another field: 'The “weak” response of a high-profile journal and a national ethics committee to the alleged fabrication of data in a retracted 2009 paper signals an “impending crisis in research integrity”, an academic has claimed.'
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/weak-handling-of-disputed-study-risks-trust-in-science/2012149.article
Ian Blanchard, serial academic malpractice is something that should concern them a great deal , for people will 'remember ' and its very hard to get a reputation back once lost. While if their any good as a university they should be concerned from just a 'quality' if not ethical point of view .
I know this is a tad OT, but I chuckled when I saw the postal address given for Bristol Universaity. Tyndall Avenue is named for one of Bristol's finest slave traders in times past, so perhaps ethics are measured on a sliding scale moderated by income earned in that city?
Bristol is my home city and I went to school just outside the city. We had houses named after famous Bristol/local celebrities including, for example, Jenner and Plimsoll. There was also a Tyndale House, but he translated the bible into English. Fortunately I was in Brunel, truly an inspiration.
Jeremy - thanks for clarifying the date of David's reply.
FWIW I agree with you that updating Bristol's management as further problems with Lewandowsky's work come to light is entirely appropriate.
If you are doing it in a simple polite manner, without demanding any action or making any unsupportable statements, you are doing them a service by bringing material to their attention which they otherwise might not be aware of. I think copying in their legal counsel. for info. is worth it - my suspicion is that SL is likely to have have breached some part of his employment contract through such past behaviour. I would make, nor ask for any, comment on that - simply point them to the information and leave it with them.
Furthermore, the exact nature of his position and tenure at Bristol and UWA is unclear to me. If current revealed behaviour is anything to go by, he may have breached terms associated with his Wolfson award. All you can do is highlight verifiable public domain information such as revealed at Retraction Watch and CA and leave the matter in their hands.
A heads up on a situation to watch should be welcome and I think that concerned Alumni respectfully noting it to the University authorities is a good thing. You have a legitimate interest as a taxpayer - Alumni do too as responsible members of the body of people with a stake in the reputation of the Institution. I think it would be particularly relevant if concerned psychologists or "climate scientists" spoke up.
I note you are getting no replies to your correspondence and I think it would be worth asking them for a simple courtesy reply confirming receipt.
http://skience.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/lewandowsky/
"Or did they just never grow up by joining the outside world?"
Mar 25, 2014 at 1:02 PM | Latimer Alder
I think there is a lot to that Latimer for both Academics and Politicians. Quite a few of them seem to be far removed from the world of 'normal' working to make a living that most of us are accustomed to.