Pennsylvania State University has cleared its faculty member, prominent climate scientist Michael Mann, of allegations of research misconduct.
In 1998, Mann published in Nature the first version of the now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last millennium.
He was also the author or recipient of around 300 of more than 1,000 emails which had leaked in November from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain. A further 79 emails deal specifically with Mann’s work without him having been copied in. Critics of his work, which involves analysis of tree-ring data, have claimed that some of the leaked emails include hints of fundamental flaws in his studies.
In the wake of the affair, Penn State University officials were flooded with inquiries – from media, US federal and state politicians, and University alumni – concerning Mann’s integrity as a researcher.
The University launched an examination into the matter on 24 November 2009, just two days after the emails had been exposed. The inquiry committee trawled through the entire correspondence, but focused on 47 emails that seemed relevant in connection with various accusations of misconduct brought forward against Mann. Its report, released yesterday, clears Mann of all allegations of wrongdoing, but says that his compliance to sound academic procedures requires further examination.
The inquiry committee – comprised of Henry Foley, Penn State’s vice director for research, Alan Scaroni, associate dean for graduate education, and Candice Yekel, director of the office for research protection – condensed the accusations against Mann to four questions, which it asked Mann to address:
1) Did [Mann] engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?
2) Did [Mann] engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to [the 2007 report by the International Panel on Climate Change] , as suggested by [then CRU director] Phil Jones?
3) Did [Mann] engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to [him] in [his] capacity as an academic scholar?
4) Did [Mann] engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?
By 18 January, Mann had produced all relevant information and additional evidence required by the committee, including a number of previously deleted emails and a supplemental written response to a personal interview with the inquiry committee on 12 January.
The committee concludes, in short, that “there exists no credible evidence” that Mann has done any of the things outlined in questions 1 to 3. There is “no substance to [these] allegations, and “no basis for further examination”, it finds.
The committee was unable to come to a definitive conclusion concerning the fourth allegation, and concluded that further consideration is needed. It finds that:
“In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.”
The committee stressed that the fourth allegation deals with research conduct, as opposed to research misconduct.
In a statement, Mann says:
“I’m very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me. Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely. Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the University administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures. This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong. I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts. I intend to cooperate fully in this matter – as I have since the beginning of the process.”
The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) expressed relief about the outcome of the inquiry.
“This is a step in the right direction that should help us move past the manufactured controversy over the stolen emails … The contents of the emails have no bearing on climate science. They must not distract us from the need to swiftly and dramatically reduce emissions,” said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy with UCS.
Francesca Grifo, director of UCS’s Scientific Integrity Program, added:
“The review shows that the scientific community takes accusations of misconduct seriously and has systems in place to hold researchers accountable… Dr. Mann made his research and communications available to the committee, and the committee promptly exonerated him of any wrongdoing. The University of East Anglia should follow suit.”
Posted on behalf of Quirin Schiermeier