jump to navigation

Climategate Revisited April 4, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, Science.
Tags: ,
add a comment

You might recall that, a few months ago, emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia were published in which climate change researchers were apparently resisting freedom of information requests and engaging in biased peer review tactics.

Conservatives claimed that the emails undermine the scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change.

From a March 31 Associated Press article:

The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world’s leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they’d seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

No doubt, the scientists were unprofessional in some of their emails, and resisting freedom of information requests is not a good idea even when the requests are politically motivated. The stakes in this debate are so high that the science must be beyond reproach.

And this is only the first of a number of on-going official inquiries in to this sordid episode.

But it is good news for our planet that the conservative attacks appear to be bogus.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

Advertisements

How Science Is Corrupted May 21, 2009

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, Ethics, Science.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

It is hard to exaggerate the degree to which, in modern societies, we are utterly dependent on science. It profoundly effects almost every aspect of our lives, and our future is bound up with the continued success of science.

In the classroom, I put a lot of emphasis on the fact that scientific results have credibility only if the public, self-correcting mechanisms of science are allowed to function so that scientific objectivity is maintained. When they don’t function well, people are harmed.

So stories about Big Pharma’s attempts to suppress or distort research results are disturbing because, if those practices become widespread, part of the foundation of modern society will be at risk. The latest story involves the publishing industry as well.

A few years ago, the painkiller Vioxx was taken off the market because there was evidence it caused heart attacks. The manufacturer, Merck, was sued, and during the course of the lawsuits it was alleged that research results showing increase risk of heart attacks were ignored and kept from the public by Merck officials. Merck has never admitted wrongdoing, but they have paid out millions in damages to the families of victims.

Vioxx cases are still being litigated in Australia and these cases have produced new revelations, this time involving Merck and the publisher Elsevier, a major publisher of academic research in a variety of fields. From The Guardian via Brian Leiter:

The relationship between big pharma and publishers is perilous. Any industry with global revenues of $600bn can afford to buy quite a lot of adverts, and pharmaceutical companies also buy glossy expensive “reprints” of the trials it feels flattered by. As we noted in this column two months ago, there is evidence that all this money distorts editorial decisions.

This time Elsevier Australia went the whole hog, giving Merck an entire publication which resembled an academic journal, although in fact it only contained reprinted articles, or summaries, of other articles. In issue 2, for example, nine of the 29 articles concerned Vioxx, and a dozen of the remainder were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions. Some were bizarre: such as a review article containing just two references….It turns out that Elsevier put out six such journals, sponsored by industry. The Elsevier chief executive, Michael Hansen, has now admitted that they were made to look like journals, and lacked proper disclosure. “This was an unacceptable practice and we regret that it took place,” he said.

Doctors, especially general practitioners, don’t have time to read every journal article regarding the latest research. They rely on summaries and brief surveys  looking for information relevant to their practice. Fake “Journals” published to look like the real thing by allegedly reputable publishing houses don’t help. Their only purpose is to deceive.

As Ben Goldacre, the author of the Guardian article says:

In a sensible world, countries would band together and pay for comparative research themselves, and the free, open distribution of the results, to prevent all this nonsense.

We do not live in a sensible world.