| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Academic Fraud |
| 2005-02-26 |
| This is a snippet of a long post I stumbled on this morning. In light of the Ward Churchill fraud and the numerous other academic frauds that have come to light in recent years, I was shocked, but should not have been, to see this discussion focus on systemic weaknesses in academic publication and defence of research that would never be allowed in financial reporting or drug testing, for example. I'm beginning to wonder if Churchill, Bellesiles, et al are not a few bad apples, but the tip of an iceberg. The treatment and supine response of Lawrence Summers leads me to believe that as there is no real external authority to which academics are accoutable. When the bonds of intellectual integrity are broken, academe becomes a rogue institution pursuing political ends without control or objectivity. And the tuition I'm paying is too damn high if this is what I'm purchasing. Sorry this went so long, but this is Rantburg. The 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report produced findings that have guided investment decisions, which vastly exceed the sums involved in even the largest financial scandals of recent years. Since the IPCC leaned heavily on a novel approach called a "multiproxy climate study" and in particular the "hockey stick graph" of Mann et al., this is where I've focused my attention. An audit trail in this case is easily defined: the data in the form used by the authors and the computer scripts used to generate the results. In principle, these can be easily buttoned up and publicly archived. I think that most civilians would assume (as I did prior to starting my studies in this area) that such packages would be standard as part of a peer review process. In fact, this is not the case. None of the major multiproxy studies have anything remotely like a complete due diligence packages and most have none at all. The author of one of the most quoted studies [Crowley and Lowery, 2000] told me that he has "mis-placed" his data. In the case of the Mann et al [1998,1999] study, used for the IPCC's "hockey stick" graph, Mann was initially unable to remember where the data was located, then provided inaccurate data, then provided a new version of the data which was inconsistent with previously published material, etc. The National Post has recently reported on my experience as this unfolded. In addition to the lack of due diligence packages, authors typically refuse to make their source code and data available for verification, even with a specific request. Even after inaccuracies in a major study had been proven, when we sought source code, the original journal (Nature) and the original funding agency (the U.S. National Science Foundation) refused to intervene. In the opinion of the latter, the code is Mann's personal commercial property. Mann recently told the Wall Street Journal that "Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people employ". My first request for source code was a very simple request and could in now way be construed as "intimidation". |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #2 If your results can't be duplicated, you have no results. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-02-26 3:22:15 PM |
| #1 Sort of gives new meaning to 'faith' based initiatives doesn't it? When its not real science, when it is not real fact, its belief/faith based. |
| Posted by: Elmagum Elmelet3878 2005-02-26 12:41:50 PM |