What Kinds of Scrutiny of Scientists are Legitimate?

, program manager, Center for Science & Democracy | February 24, 2015, 7:14 pm EDT
Bookmark and Share

This morning, Rep. Raul Grijalva sent letters to seven universities seeking documents related to academics who have testified before Congress on climate change. The requests come in the wake of revelations over the weekend that the Smithsonian Institution agreed not to disclose payments from the Southern Company, a major utility, to fund and review the work of Smithsonian aerospace engineer Willie Soon. As all of the researchers in question have been critical of mainstream climate science, some are wondering if Rep. Grijalva’s requests can be considered a witch hunt. So is it?

After news broke that the Smithsonian Institution agreed to hide financial ties between one of its researchers and a utility company, Rep. Raul Grijalva sent letters seeking funding information and draft testimony from seven university researchers. Funding information should be disclosed; draft testimony should not. Photo: Alex Proimos via Flickr

After news broke that the Smithsonian Institution agreed to hide financial ties between one of its researchers and a utility company, Rep. Raul Grijalva sent letters seeking funding information and draft testimony from seven university researchers. Funding information should be disclosed; draft testimony should not. Photo: Alex Proimos via Flickr

Parts of the requests are appropriate, and parts are not. Each letter asks for information about funding received by the university in connection with the academic’s work, and whether there are any strings attached to that funding. This is entirely appropriate, as funding and the agreements that come with it can create conflicts of interest and be the source of undue influence on the research itself. The universities and researchers that are named in the letters should comply with requests for this information.

Each letter also asks for draft testimony, presumably to see if funders influenced it. Just as I have supported universities’ efforts to protect communications among academics that constitute the research process, so, too, I see justification in protecting drafts of congressional testimony. Universities would be justified in resisting this aspect of the request. A better approach is to evaluate funding agreements and related communications, which can elicit valuable information. For example, Dr. Soon’s report back to the Southern Company included testimony as a “deliverable.”

Notably, the requests from Rep. Grijalva are considerably less invasive than a request made in 2005 by Rep. Joe Barton for materials from Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann. Rep. Barton’s request sought not only funding information but also data, computer code, research methods, information related to his participation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (including report reviewers), and detailed justifications of several of his scientific calculations. The Barton requests were roundly condemned by scientists, and were part of a long history of harassment of Dr. Mann and his colleagues.

How this relates to Open Records Laws

Requests from members of Congress using their congressional authority are similar to requests from individuals using state and federal open records laws—laws that have been used to harass and intimidate scientists although meant to serve the public interest by exposing inappropriate influence on both science and how science is used in decision making. Earlier in February, UCS released a report detailing how special interests and activists across the political spectrum have misused open records laws. Also this month, at least twelve public university scientists who work on genetic engineering received overly broad requests for email correspondence and other research materials.

So what is the appropriate level of disclosure? Where do you draw the line?

Open records laws are designed to support the public interest, and exemptions to those laws should do the same. Cartoon copyright UCS/Morgan Swofford

Open records laws are designed to support the public interest, and exemptions to those laws should do the same. Cartoon copyright UCS/Morgan Swofford

Open records laws are designed to support the public interest, and exemptions to those laws should do the same. In the case of research communications, the public interest lies in the ability of scientists to ask difficult questions and pursue new lines of inquiry. In the case of financial records, the public interest lies in the ability of those outside the university to see if funds were misspent or financial conflicts of interest were kept secret.

More narrow requests that attempt to ferret out special-interest influence on public institutions are legitimate (as in Kansas, where activists are seeking information about financial support of a professor by the Koch Foundation, or with regard to the Smithsonian case, where funding agreements were first obtained through the federal Freedom of Information Act by Greenpeace). On the other hand, intrusive requests for documents that were part of the research process are not.

We can expect academics whose work is related to contentious issues to continue to receive enormous amounts of scrutiny. It increasingly clear that academic societies and the National Academies need to establish recommendations for disclosure standards that balance the public’s interest in transparency and the public’s interest in the ability of academics to do their best work.

Posted in: Global Warming, Science and Democracy, Scientific Integrity Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments


Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • Mark Bahner

    “As all of the researchers in question have been critical of mainstream climate science…”
    Echoing Paul Matthews: please provide evidence that shows that Roger Pielke Jr. has been “…critical of mainstream climate science…”

  • windy2

    Here are actual copies of the contract which is with the Smithsonian and not with Dr Soon as the dear reader might infer. The only one obligated to meet the conditions requested in the “deliverables” section of the contract is The Smithsonian’s William Ford. Please carefully read the “Deliverables” section so that you understand this for yourselves. +This is a pretty standard requirement by most funding sources regardless of origin. There is no conflict of interest to be gleaned from the “deliverables” spelled out in this contract with the Smithsonian.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/23/greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead/

  • Paul Matthews

    This ill-informed blog post makes the same mistake many others have.

    “As all of the researchers in question have been critical of mainstream climate science…”

    Roger Pielke is not critical of mainstream climate science.
    If you look at his blog you will see that he regularly quotes directly from the IPCC reports, particularly on extreme events such as hurricanes.
    What he is critical of is the exaggerated claims often made by journalists and political activists.

    The requests are not “appropriate” in any way. What Grijalva has done is pick out 7 scientists and write letters insinuating that they are funded by the Koch brothers and big oil and have hidden this.

    If you people are genuinely “concerned scientists” you ought to be condemning this McCarthyist attack on academic free speech.

  • Brad Keyes

    Just to acknowledge a debt of which I’m sure Dr Halpern is acutely conscious,

    It was of course Prof Stephan Lewandowsky who pioneered the illegitimate insertion framework in the first place, which we still use when differentiating and understanding valid and invalid probings of scientific researchers. Non-experts should find Lewandowsky’s remarks in this interview a gentle and painless introduction to the Big Ideas at stake here. It’s famously well-lubricated, at any rate.

  • Brad Keyes

    The “skeptics” never cease to amuse.

    One year they’re demanding that honest researchers like Michael Mann disclose such trivia as the verification statistics, math, exact methodology, code and data behind his ‘hockey stick’ papers [MBH98, 99], extolling something they claim is “the fundamental transparency that is at the heart of all true science…”

    And yet the very next decade—after that’s been refused—they suddenly turn into privacy fundamentalists, Medieval obscurantists, just because the legitimate science world would like to apply those very same standards to the financial data their denier champions are effortfully secreting.

    Look, “skeptics,” the Scientific Method is crystal clear here:

    If you ever want the legitimate climate scientists to start practicing open science one day, then that requires some reciprocity now—in advance—from you guys.

    Think of this as an audit. We just want to know who’s bankrolling bad science, mkay?

    We’re just Auditing. Scientists. Financially.

    Everybody likes an Auditor, right?