Scientific Secrecy
Scientific Method Under Siege
By Daniel Muniz

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning.

Source: Wikipedia

It is evident that the only way for the scientific method to truly work is for scientists and researchers to make available the raw data and the techniques that were actually used in order to arrive at their conclusion. The “trust but verify” tenet is very much applicable in scientific thought in order to ensure the integrity of science while dispelling erroneous and fraudulent claims.

And more to the point, especially because of the hundreds of millions (and in some cases, billions) of government funded dollars that are involved in research projects, it is imperative that nobody is swindling the taxpayer with bogus science. In addition, it is equally important that when such studies are used to make public policy decisions that the research is scientifically sound and has gone through peer review and scientific debate.

Besides, wouldn’t it be natural for scientists to want to share exactly how they reached their findings with the science community, especially if it indeed is a revolutionary discovery?

After all, if such an important breakthrough was made, it is absolutely essential that it be authenticated so that it is not to be confused with junk science or pseudo science.

Unfortunately, some of the government funded research doesn’t work that way.

For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made an astounding claim in which they assert that 20,000 people die every year because of air pollution, namely soot. As a result, if more stringent air quality provisions were implemented across the board, then the country could save about 100 billion dollars a year. The EPA arrived at the dollar figure by simply applying $5 million to each life saved.

Of course, this is a rather startling assertion.

And the ramifications of implementing such air quality rules are enormous because they place a colossal burden on the economy. Consequently, if the government is going to penalize people and businesses with environmental regulations, then we as a country better have the facts right.

It didn’t take long for the EPA’s findings to come under scrutiny because of a number of its correlations were faulty to begin with. In response to the criticism, Congress requested that the EPA make public the raw data it used in the study it relied on for its conclusion so that other independent experts could verify its authenticity. This report, named the Pope Study after the Brigham Young University professor C. Arden Pope, would be useful for other scientists to examine in order to confirm its veracity.

The EPA refused.

They felt that any re-analysis of their work was unnecessary and that in essence, we should just take their word for it.

Of course, their arrogance doesn’t pass the smell test. The scientific method relies entirely on independent bodies being able to examine the evidence and verifying the same conclusion in an open honest debate.

And this isn’t the first incident of scientific secrecy and it certainly won’t be the last.

In another example, the hockey stick graph has been touted as empirical evidence for the existence of man’s contribution to global warming. This chart demonstrates that for the past 1000 years our climate was relatively unchanged until the 20th century, thus the correlation is that the gigantic spike in temperatures must be attributed to man.

Naturally, there is skepticism because daily measurement of air temperatures is fairly recent (like just over 100 hundred years ago) and precise daily global measurements are still very much in its infancy. Nobody was recording this kind of information in North America five hundred years ago or in any other place on the planet therefore it is important to know what the raw data is and which techniques were employed to arrive at this conclusion.

Numerous scientists and researchers requested that the creator of the hockey stick graph, Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, release his source code for the software that generated his chart.

Dr. Mann refused.

But what was most ironic was that he developed his hockey stick chart under the auspices of government money.

However, when Representative Joe Barton, former chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, personally requested that Dr. Mann make all of his raw data and software code available to the public, the Congressman was scorned by much of the science community and the press demonized his request as a witch hunt. Supporters of global warming are so adamant that their beliefs are absolutely correct that they feel that there should not be any debate on this issue even when it comes to questionable evidence.

Now that is not the way science should be conducted.

Unfortunately, incidents like this are happening all too often but what is truly tragic is how the science community looks the other way when it comes to flawed research. Instead of facilitating scientific debate, scientists are actually stifling it by not allowing their federally funded work to be scrutinized by their peers.

Part of the problem is arrogance. Certain scientists enjoy the spotlight especially when it involves sensational discoveries. And the media loves sensationalism but unfortunately, they happen to enjoy it more than the rigors of true science.

But the bigger part of the problem is government money. Controversy attracts money and the more sensational a claim is, the more funding it can attract. But the science community cannot play fast and loose with their research especially when the taxpayer is paying for it. They must allow their federally funded research to be open to the public so real scientific debate can be facilitated.

In 1998, Congress passed a federal law requiring exactly that.

However, obtaining such scientific data is still problematic because a number of scientists do not want to make their studies available. By maintaining this scientific secrecy, scientists are not only committing a serious disservice to the public but they are circumventing the integrity of the scientific method.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.