When it's time to speak out
By confronting ExxonMobil, the Royal Society is not being a censor of science but an advocate for it.
It isn't clear whether Bob Ward, former manager of policy communication at the Royal Society in London, knew quite what he was letting himself in for when he penned a letter taking the oil company ExxonMobil to task for funding groups that deny the human role in global warning. But with hindsight the result was predictable: once his letter was published by the British Guardian newspaper, the Royal Society was denounced from all quarters as having overstepped its role as an impartial custodian of science.
Read the column here.
Comments
I cannot impute the slightest innumeracy to so astute a condensed matter writer as Phillip Ball.
Yet he notes "In his 2005 Anniversary Address,[Lord] May criticized "the campaigns waged by those whose belief systems or commercial interests impel them to deny, or even misrepresent, the scientific facts"."
I instead I await his accounting of why Mr.Gore should be licensed to hype the rate of sea level rise by two orders of magnitude in his film, while his books old and new propagate graphs showing a rate of species extinction that went dead vertical to infinity in the year 2000.
Incensed at $2.9 million being spent on science many ( myself included ) find tendentious and few find worthy of citation , Ball writes that Ward:
"rightly ridicules the notion of ExxonMobil as the frail David to the Royal Society's "bullying" Goliath."
Phillip instead compares the RS to a " cash-strapped aristocrat who lives in the crumbling family pile. In contrast, the climate sceptics count among their number the most powerful man in the world."
But $2.9 million is only 2% of the production budget of _The Day After Tomorrow_.
Rather more is spent every month(or less) by the Advertising Council's Green clients in liason with the movers and shakes of the IPCC.
Sure as hope is the anchor, hype is the enemy , and ever since science ran into sin at Hiroshima , it has been advertising's lawful prey.
Whatever happened to 'Nullius in Verba'? If Lord May agrees with Ward's 'business model' of the RS
why not just privatize it ?
Like the Royal Mint the old pile has a lot of condo potential, and given the price of Labor Life Peerages, the RS could make out like bandits selling Fellowships to BP execs.
Posted by: Russell Seitz | October 8, 2006 01:58 PM
You note that in “his 2005 Anniversary Address, [Robert] May criticized ‘the campaigns waged by those whose belief systems or commercial interests impel them to deny, or even misrepresent, the scientific facts’.” And at the end you say, "Challenging powerful groups that distort science for personal, political or commercial reasons is not censorship, it is being an advocate for science in the real world."
Right. That's why it's still necessary to note, in any discussion like this one, that Nature itself has never taken responsibility for distorting the Hemings-Jefferson molecular findings nearly a decade ago. Nature’s distortion spread, still skews historical discussion today, and matters in principle -- whether or not Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson actually were parents together.
In 1998, geneticists reported in Nature that DNA analysis linked descendants of Thomas Jefferson’s paternal uncle to a descendant of Eston Hemings, the youngest child of Sally Hemings -- a woman whom Jefferson owned, thanks to the abomination of American slavery. Which carrier of the Jefferson DNA marker fathered Eston?
Only historical evidence can answer. What the geneticists called their molecular findings pointed to any Jefferson, not necessarily the Jefferson. Yet atop the geneticists’ scientific report, and without their concurrence, Nature placed a headline pointing only to the Jefferson, not just any Jefferson. That headline said: "Jefferson fathered slave's last child."
Worse, atop an accompanying "News and Views" essay, Nature published a summary, and alongside the essay, a Jefferson likeness and caption. Both statements contradicted the scientific report and the essay by asserting that DNA analysis, alone, had identified Thomas as Eston’s father.
It is true that certain historians, and the Nature articles’ authors, believe historical evidence rules out every carrier of the Jefferson family DNA marker except Thomas Jefferson. The problem -- the distortion that even today requires challenging, given Nature’s unwillingness to take responsibility -- is that Nature’s headline, summary and caption misrepresented, and trumpeted, that historical interpretation as a scientific finding.
Confused media reports ensued, blocking people from judging for themselves the combined scientific and historical evidence. Nature's own abuse of the special authority of science had harmed understanding. That science abuse stands as an example of why science must police itself rigorously as it continues to contribute -- or anyway, try to contribute -- purely rationally to civic discourse.
Posted by: Steven T. Corneliussen | October 9, 2006 10:00 PM
Mr Ball suggests that Exxon Mobile has as its supporter the most "powerful man in the world" who succeeded in "emasculating" the only emissions treaty that we have. In fact, ironically, the US under George Bush would be one the most Kyoto compliant countries (if it had signed the treaty) in the developed world - nearly all of the EU countries having dramatically exceeded their Kyoto CO2 quotas. The flaws in Kyoto are maybe why the US senate - under president Clinton -voted 98 to 0 in favour of not approving treaties of this nature. Notwithstanding what the senators believed about AGW (and some must believe in it) they thought Kyoto to be bad policy. This is the point; there is a difference between Science and applying science in public policy. The science on Genetically Modified foods (for example) indicates that GM food is safe. Many people nonetheless campaign against GM foods, (as is their right) backed by money from environmental groups (as is their right). Does Mr Ball fulminate against this?
The fact is that in the area of policy, climate alarmists - as distinct from those who are concerned - have considerably more resources behind them than sceptics. The lobbying dollars spent by green groups, for better or worse, far outweigh those spend by Exxon. A real illustration of this effect is that most media (and Al Gore) portray hurricanes as result of AGW. This is nonetheless contrary to the prevailing majority scientific view. (As a matter of interest, I wonder if Mr Ball and the Royal Society would advocate limiting funds to those scientists - still in the minority - who believe that hurricane intensity is a result of AGW.)
Finally, Mr Ball also does his position no favours by ad hominem attacks on sceptics, such as the Daily Telegraph. Yes, in the past, a reporter on the Daily Telegraph may have written silly articles about Aids. But this is no more relevant here than the fact that over the years some silly papers have been published in Nature.
Posted by: Michael Schewitz | October 9, 2006 10:42 PM
I am grateful to Philip Ball for correcting many of the inaccurate accounts that have been given of the letter that I sent to ExxonMobil whilst at the Royal Society. May I also scotch the laughable stories that some of my critics have been trying to spread that I was sacked by the Royal Society - I handed my notice in some three months ago and left the Society on 22 September, so rumours that I was sacked are nothing more than malicious nonsense.
Such rumours are a predictable response from those dissenting groups and individuals who argue that they have a right to misrepresent the scientific evidence on climate change. Whilst they are right that science advances through healthy debate, they scrupulously fail to mention that such debates in science are based on the evidence. Where is their evidence?
The websites of ExxonMobil and many of the lobby groups that it funds include inaccurate and misleading statements about the scientific evidence on climate change. Such statements make little or no reference to peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Neither the Royal Society nor I have been trying to censor scientific debate, particularly among those who present evidence to support their views. And I positively encourage ExxonMobil and the lobby groups they fund to submit the evidence on which their views are based to peer-reviewed journals so that it can be fully debated by the scientific community. But they seem to prefer a debate that takes place through glossy PR documents, websites, newspaper articles and television adverts.
I was rather surprised to find that, as a former journalist, David Whitehouse has argued that companies and lobby groups have the right to mislead the public and policy-makers about climate change, and that they should not be challenged by the Royal Socety, or presumably any other scientific bodies. Surely such an attitude does not promote the interests of either the scientific community or the public?
Bob Ward
Posted by: B. Ward | October 10, 2006 12:19 PM
Dear Bob -- glad you liked the piece. While we're clearing things up, could you clarify how the letter made it into the public domain?
Posted by: Oliver | October 10, 2006 01:34 PM
As the author of the Guardian story that revealed the contents of the Royal Society letter, I take issue with the assertion that the news story did not help matters.
Firstly, it goes without saying that without the story, Nature, and dozens of other commentators who have expressed their views on the Royal Society's actions, would have no knowledge of what the letter said. We even published the full letter on our website.
Second, you imply that the story misrepresents the contents of the letter. I would argue that it takes a very literal reading of the letter's text not to see an implicit request that ExxonMobil withdraws funding for the contrarian groups, an intention confirmed to me by Mr Ward when I interviewed him prior to writing the story. For the record, neither Mr Ward nor the Royal Society has complained that the Guardian misrepresented the letter's contents.
David Adam
Posted by: David Adam | October 10, 2006 01:54 PM
The above is inaccurate and misrepresents my position.
I did not say that companies, lobby groups or indeed societies and institutions should not be challenged over their views which they have a right to express even if they cannot put them into peer-reviewed format.
What does not promote the interests of either the scientific community or the public is an instiutional authority delving into politics and PR to police the scientific consensus. If anyone or group thinks another is misleading the science then the answer is open debate, only open debate.
When science institutions seek to enter politics and try to actively influence public policy they should adopt the ethics of science, not those of Alistair Campbell, lest they be found out.
Finally, another inaccuracy, not a 'former' journalist, just not a BBC one.
Posted by: David Whitehouse | October 10, 2006 09:20 PM
I just wanted to add to this to the last 2 comments in particular:
1)There is politics in eveything. So this belief that Scientific Research institutions now seek to enter into such a realm is more than likely false.
2) Also, in relation to policing an activity of a group or organization is actively supported by all liberl democracies who push to ensure checks and balances in every aspect of life, especially such concerned with society as a whole.
This does not even start me on the fact that to misrepresent anything knowingly is immoral, furthermore to do this in a Scientific realm, which is judged by the common man and the experts through accuracy and objective experiments, simply denotes Science itself.
It leaves me in utter shame, that persons can be of the view of lying to the public whole heartedly.
May we all be guided.
Just a comment. God Bless.
Posted by: Miss. Maryam Pandor | October 12, 2006 05:02 AM
Perhaps David Whitehouse could post on this blog the letter that he posted on Benny Peiser's closed blog, containing his various accusations - then anybody can compare it with the letter I sent to ExxonMobil.
I am still mystified by David Whitehouse's accusations - does he believe that the statements made by ExxonMobil and the many lobby groups that it supports are consistent with the evidence documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?
The coverage from the Guardian has helped to make public the attempts that I made at the Royal Society to challenge the misleading information published by ExxonMobil and the lobby groups that it funds. I did not demand that ExxonMobil stop funding anybody, but I did express positive feelings to the Guardian about the fact that ExxonMobil offered to stop supporting these groups because, unlike David Whitehouse apparently, I do not think that providing financial support for the dissemination of misleading information on the web promotes informed public debate. Science relies not just on open debate, but also on evidence. Perhaps he could provide examples of the efforts that these lobby groups have made to engage the scientific community in open debate through the publication of their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers, in addition to the assertions aimed at the public through websites, newspaper articles and television adverts?
And my apologies for not making clear that David Whitehouse is still a journalist.
Bob Ward.
Posted by: B. Ward | October 13, 2006 10:27 AM
I'm glad to see Russell Seitz is still shooting from the hip - long may it continue.
I haven't seen Gore's film yet, but my response to that is simple: if he is misrepresenting the science, the RS would be perfectly justified in criticising him too. Let's not forget that they spoke out against Greenpeace's distortions at the same time as initially doing so about ExxonMobil.
I'm mystified as to why David Whitehouse thinks a scientific body like the RS should not "delve into politics". Surely we have progressed beyond the view that science is done by pure-hearted scientists who then hand down their pure findings for the grubby world to do with them as they please? Many political issues involve science, and scientists and their institutions do no one any favours by trying to maintain some aloof and objective posture. You do that in Kansas, Alabama or even Pennysylvania these days and see where we end up.
The Guardian did a good job in making the issue public. They aren't to blame for the way the matter was distorted subsequently.
Michael Schewitz asks why I don't fulminate against critics of GM foods. Give me another soapbox, and I'll happily do that. Or rather, I'll happily denounce the bad science and scaremongering that has entered that debate, mostly from environmental groups. I'll support people's right to make an informed choice, to have proper safety tests and trials conducted (to avoid crop contamination of the sort that has now created problems with UK rice imports), and to worry about issues of corporate control. Opposition to GMOs has been based on some misrepresented science, but by no means solely on that.
Yes, Nature has published some dodgy papers, like any other journal. That is not the same as a newspaper journalist writing unscientific nonsense because of some undisclosed personal agenda, especially when it endangers human health. That much should be obvious.
Posted by: Phil Ball | October 13, 2006 04:45 PM
If the final paragraph of Phil Ball's Oct. 13 contribution refers to my Oct. 9 contribution -- and please forgive me if it does not -- facts and molecular findings dispute him. Please note that I refer not to a paper in Nature, but to a paper's misleading headline -- assigned by Nature without the authors' approval, according to the lead author -- and to two outright false statements that Nature published elsewhere in the issue in question. This misreporting was indeed comparable to "a newspaper journalist writing unscientific nonsense," except that we all expect a good bit more from Nature, and except that the consequent skewing of public discussion was therefore much greater. As I say, Nature has never taken responsibility for its abuse, in that case, of science's special authority -- which matters whether or not Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson, who abominably owned her, were parents together.
Posted by: Steven T. Corneliussen | October 17, 2006 09:09 PM
Hello all. For those interested, I just wanted to point out that Steven Corneliussen's views have been published by Nature here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418125c.html
Nicola.
Posted by: Nicola Jones | October 18, 2006 11:44 AM
Nicola Jones reports a 2002 letter in which I scolded Nature for continuing to disrespect the distinction between what the Hemings-Jefferson DNA authors called their molecular findings and the historical interpretation of those findings. Please note that, if it matters, I myself have no opinion about the paternity allegation itself, except that I think the paternity is a good bit less certain than its zealous advocates claim. Instead, what matters to me is abuse of the special authority of science, especially when the proprietors of the world's leading science forum perpetrate it. However, the cited letter contains a reference. The link to that reference, an online report, has been discontinued because the lead author, the legal scholar Robert F. Turner of the University of Virginia, is about to publish a book that will replace it. Those who may be interested in the anti-paternity argument set forth in the discontinued online reference might want to read instead an op-ed Turner published, available at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95000747 .
Posted by: Steven T. Corneliussen | October 18, 2006 12:20 PM
David Whitehouse asserts: "If anyone or group thinks another is misleading the science then the answer is open debate, only open debate."
But clearly there are some areas where the science is so clear, so cut-and-dried, and its opponents so irrational (yes, I'm talking about 'Intelligent Design'), that debate is absolutely the wrong approach, giving the irrationalists unwarrented credibility.
I'm not saying this is exactly such a case, only that the blanket assertion that 'debate' is required, is not always a solution.
Posted by: Ray Gossen | October 26, 2006 08:44 AM
Phillip Ball, Oct 13th, in response to my comment, focusses now on undisclosed "agenda" - naturally held by journalists he disagrees with and never by Nature.
The fact though is that tonnes of environmentalists have an undisclosed agenda. Environmentalism has, for many, become the new left in that it provides a justification for significant governement intervention and control of resources, not to mention punitative taxation. Indeed, one of the founders of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) commented on how the left moved into Greenpeace when Socialism became a discredited policy with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Green Industry now spends far more on lobbying than does Exxon.
Does the above refute one single scientific claim made by environtmentalists? Absolutely not. But it does make the point that nearly everone in this debate has an agenda.In fact, after you have published a few papers that lean in a certain direction, you have an agenda.
Far better just to challenge the hype or the bad science than to campaign to shut down people with whom you disagree because you think they have an agenda.
Incidentally, I will be happy to give Mr Ball examples of many articles that have published in Nature (some very good) over the last 70 or so years that have had an agenda.
Posted by: Michael Schewitz | October 26, 2006 06:55 PM