Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
to permit scientific research into cloning humans) - more on upstream inter-
ventions later in the chapter. It's also vital to foster 'downstream' discussion
about the implications of research for society and environment. But this is
not the same as advocating for public assessment of how, to take examples
from climate change science, researchers combine temperature data from
far-flung weather stations or code computer models that simulate future
air-land-water dynamics. The best way to ensure trust in the conduct of
esoteric science is to
utilise the existing resources of the scientific enterprise
.To
do otherwise is simply to displace responsibility on to others who may
not be best equipped to judge the science. As one commentator observed
of 'post-gate' arguments, climate scientists should submit voluntarily to
'extended peer review' of their research methods and findings by diverse
stakeholders:
if several auditors reached conflicting conclusions, then somehow a judgement
would have to be made about
their
respective competence. And who should
make that judgement? Presumably a group of suitably qualified, honest indi-
viduals with a proven track record in a relevant discipline - in other words [the
climate scientists being audited!].
(Corner, 2010: 37, emphasis added)
Quite aside from this, the lack of evidence of
widespread
malpractice in the
climate change - or any other scientific - community means that it's an
One lesson of the two 'gates' is thus that climate scientists need to do
a better job when it comes to 'quality control'. If science, as Robert Mer-
ton (1942/1979) famously said, is a form of 'organised scepticism' in which
investigator experience, logic, trial-and-error and evidence combine, then it
must be seen to apply in a fair and comprehensive way. One hopes that
a positive outcome of the 2009-10 scandals is to remind climate scien-
tists and the wider scientific community that professional norms cannot
be adhered to selectively. The credibility of science as a powerful genre
of representation is at risk if systemic malpractice is perceived - all the
more so for '
post-normal
'
science
where the stakes are high and decisions
urgent. Accordingly, blind peer review needs to be utilised virtually without
exception, and data and methodological procedures made publicly available
where possible. There can be no suggestion of arbitrariness, manipulation or
evasiveness. Peer review 'works' because it applies the norm of dispassion-
ate assessment to the research of others without fear or favour. Relatedly,
transparency about evidence and how it's analysed helps to ensure maximal
rigour and honesty among scientists.
A second lesson relates to science communication directed to politi-
cians, the press and publics. Climate change science is one of several
where epistemic uncertainty looms large. Yet, the successive IPCC reports
have created the impression that scientists are now relatively sure that
