Scientific integrity and money
I am posting this in response to Chris Fellows’ comment about university interference in expressing one’s opinion (see post “Comments on Richard Dawkins: the God Delusion”). I am shocked that this has happened here. Universities are supposed to be institutions of free learning and research, and the guarantee of free expression of opinions should be the foundation of any university deserving that name. But, of course, universities these days are also money-spinning enterprises, forced to contribute significantly to financing themselves by attracting funds on the “free market”. This has the very unfortunate consequence that there often will be a conflict of interest between objective research and results expected by the money givers. It should be prohibited to receive funds from a source that has some interest in the outcome of the research. Take the tobacco industry. Why has it taken so long until anti-smoking laws were introduced? Important factors certainly were the “research” reports financed by the tobacco industry claiming that tobacco was not so bad. Or take the environmental impact studies financed by the uranium mining companies or land developers. I do not claim that all the people doing research financed in this way were corrupt, and I do not claim that all reports were doctored, and I do not claim that the companies tried to influence the outcome of the research in any way, but one is perhaps more careful in arriving at conclusions adversely affecting the activities of the financiers than if the money had come from independent sources. After all, one wants continuing research support. Therefore, as a matter of principle, such financing of research should be forbidden by law.
Does the case of UNE and its arrangement with the Australian College of Natural Therapies mentioned by Chris Fellows fall into this category? I don’t know what kind of arrangement the university had. Did it profit financially by it, directly or indirectly (by increasing student numbers)? Whatever the case: a university actively interfering with publishing an opinion is similar to a government doctoring research reports (see my post “Scientific Integrity and Global Warming”). It corrupts the whole process of free research and learning.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:21 am
This problem works in both directions. It isn’t just conflict of interest that undermines freedom of research and expression, but also biases within and outside the scientific community. Here’s an example of scientist who question the mainstream views on global warming being derided, having funds cut, and even receiving death threats - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml. The problem of conflict of interest is only a small part of the bigger problem facing freedom of expression amongst scientists. This is especially the case with regards to emotive or politicised issues like global warming, and can work both ways.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:22 am
That link should have been
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
March 15th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Peter. Yes, I agree. Freedom of expression has to be guaranteed regardless of whether an opinion fits into the mainstream of thought or not. However, I also believe that research should not be funded directly by companies which have an interest in the outcome of the research (such as health effects of tobacco, mining, land development etc.). The way around would be to require companies to contribute to a fund administered by a neutral body that has the responsibility to allocate funds on the basis of peer reviewed applications (perhaps such a system exists somewhere). Concerning global warming, there is plenty of evidence of government pressure on scientists to water down their reports. I am not aware of any pressure by governments to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
Conflict of interest is not just a small part , it is a very important part of the problem. With regard to global warming, a public that refuses to see the disastrous consequences because it is not willing to pay the costs of fighting off the threat, and politicians who refuse to do anything until it is too late because of supposed threats to the economy and jobs, are as or even more important (although this may well be defined as “conflict of interest”, between short-term advantages and the future of humanity).
March 15th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
> I am not aware of any pressure by governments to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
For a long time there have been allegations that the UN has tried to exaggerate the effects of global warming in its reports. If true, presumably this is largely due to ideological trends within that institution. Also, it would be reasonable to assume that some governments would in fact try to exaggerate the effects of global warming, simply because they have an interest to do so. Specifically, Germany, the former Soviet repulics, and developing countries like China or India would all have immense personal interest in ensuring the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. I think the dynamics are more complicated than you make out.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I don’t quite see why Germany, China and India should have “personal” interests in having the Kyoto protocol ratified, if not for the simple reason that they are indeed worried about the enormous effects global warming would have on their future. The Bay of Bengal (India, Bangladesh), for example, has very large coastal areas hardly above sea level, with millions of people living there. Imagine what would happen if sea levels would rise even slightly. Germany, being heavily dependent on the car and heavy industry for export, would be much better off by simply ignoring potential climate change.
In toto, even if one is sceptical about some aspects of the forecasts (remember the bishop, I believe of Sydney, who compared scientists predicting a global catastrophe due to climate change with medieval doomsday prophets), I think that in this particular case it is better to be overcautious. After all, our future is at stake. All we could do, in the case of catastrophe, would be to continue our discussion on who has been right, in heaven or hell. I personally would be delighted if the few dissenters were right. But unfortunately I think they are fools.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
> I don’t quite see why Germany, China and India should have “personal†interests in having the Kyoto protocol ratified
There are extremely strong reasons for this. First, the Kyoto Protocol requires greenhouse gas emission reductions using 1990 as a benchmark. Not coincidentally, this is around the time when the Soviet Union disintegrated. At the time Germany and the former Soviet republics all had immense amounts of inefficient Soviet industy which were extremely polluting and very unproductive. Many of these industries would go on to be shut down in favour of more high tech western technologies that were more productive and efficient. This has led all these countries to undergo large scale reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions just by shutting down useless former soviet industries. Under the Kyoto protocol Germany and many of the former Soviet countries could significantly increase their emissions, while other European countries would have to reduce their emissions. This creates an offset in greenhouse ‘credit’, which countries like Germany could sell to other countries for billions of dollars. In the case of China and India the situation is a little different. These countries are classed as developing countries and are not required to reduce their emissions at all. This gives them a competitive advantage. All that will happen is the polluting industries that can no longer operate in Kyoto-bound countries will shift their operations to China and India. This just gives them billions of dollars for nothing, while the net environmental effects is zilch.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Peter, I must say you are very well informed. However, only a relatively small part of Germany (the former DDR) had inefficient industries that had to be shut down. What about the much larger West Germany? How many credits did Germany sell to India and China? If it did profit from such trading, the benefits were probably not even sufficient to pay for the costs of reconstructing the former DDR (but I do not have any quantitative information on this). By how much was Germany allowed to increase its emissions? (It is new to me that this actually was allowed).- Concerning the shift of dirty technologies to developing countries, this is unfortunately done by countries irrespective of whether they have signed the Kyoto protocol or not. The reason for allowing developing countries to increase their emissions was that they had to catch up with developed nations in order to raise the relative level of living standards (I believe).
The fact still remains that Germany, India, China, Australia, many other Pacific nations, and probably almost all countries are likely to suffer from climate change, and that something must be done. The Kyoto Protocol was meant to be a first step and more will have to be done. Each single nation should have a “personal” interest to switch to cleaner technologies.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
In this context, the following report from BBC News online, 17.3.07, may be relevant:
Germany’s environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel, says the United States has blocked progress on two key issues to protect the global environment.
He was speaking after a two-day meeting of environment ministers in the German city of Potsdam.
The issues were carbon emissions trading and rewarding developing nations for protecting their natural assets, he said.
Mr Gabriel said the US opposition was “not a surprise”.
The Potsdam conference brought together ministers from the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations - the United States, Canada, France, UK, Germany, Japan, Italy and Russia - and Brazil, India, China Mexico and South Africa from the developing world.
‘Not subtle’
Ministers stressed that the meeting had shown that there was a good deal of consensus on the scale and nature of the problem of climate change - but a lack of agreement on the tools to tackle it.
The BBC’s Matt McGrath in Potsdam says there was a widespread acceptance that sustainable economic development had to go hand in hand with efforts to cut emissions of carbon dioxide.
But disagreements surfaced over specifics such as extending the global system of carbon trading, one of the central planks of any proposed deal to curb emissions.
According to one delegate the United States was “not subtle” in its opposition to carbon trading, and to another proposal that would pay developing countries to preserve rainforests.
“We find this regrettable,” Mr Gabriel told reporters.
But he said: “I would have been disappointed if I’d expected something different.”
March 19th, 2007 at 11:41 am
It strikes me that ratifying one protocol increases the chance that another one will be ratified in the future, so I think China and India’s longer term interests would be served by opposing Kyoto, to avoid a future political environment when emissions caps might be imposed on them by a righteously indignant global community…
As for the Bay of Bengal: If sea level rises, regular flooding by silt-laden river waters should ensure that the delta remains above sea level. Only if a future China, bullied into controlling carbon dioxide emissions, were to build a couple of huge hydroelectric plants on the Brahmaputra, would Bengal be in danger.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
India and China: this seems to me a bit far fetched (and, honestly, not quite logical). China suffers from air and water pollution right now, and this will become worse.
Bay of Bengal: would this depend on the speed and amount of sea level rise? There seems to be much controversy about how much we can expect, and how fast it will be. I certainly would not feel comfortable sitting there and waiting for what might happen.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
My pet hate at the moment is opinion pieces by scientists or journalists, reading like a scientific critique. Inserted are misleading references, biased judgements etc. The context (eg. blog, editorial) to me screams out *grain of salt, please* but opponents of the opinion are driven into a frenzy of disproving their scientific-looking references.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
By the way, I am not talking about this blog or Chris Fellow’s science blog. I am talking about (for instance) the articles that Realclimate waste time repudiating. Realclimate also raises my ire by mixing in “authoratitive opinion” amongst their comments on the science, without being clear where science stops and opinion begins.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
This comment is only a gratuitous advertisement, please forgive me- my name should now be linked to my new blog
http://chrisfellows.blogspot.com/2007/03/who-am-i.html
October 7th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
[...] a previous post I have discussed the “integrity of science†and attempts by governments to suppress or [...]