JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

Research integrity is integral to the science brand.  AAAS delegates at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity recently contributed to a draft statement of international research integrity recommendations.  Collaborations of this nature are necessary to maintain public trust in science.  According to Mark S. Frankel, director of the AAAS Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program, “Climategate” expanded the reach of research integrity to issues that deal with scientists’ responsibilities to the public and their role in science advocacy. 

Frankel stated that “climate researchers had crossed the line from being disinterested scientists in search of truth, to advocates for what they believed was needed in terms of a policy response.”

I see no problem with scientists becoming policy advocates.  The problem is the perception of disingenuousness or outright deception (as was the perception in “Climategate”).  Considering that the climate scientists were cleared of all charges, in my opinion, the “Climategate” issue was purely a public relations disaster more so than a scientific integrity issue.  In this case, the scientists were unable to win the PR war.  I believe scientists will be more successful in the future by enlisting science brand loyalists to help in the PR battles. 

One question that lingers is, “How were climate denialists able to challenge the integrity of the scientists (the people) involved in the climate controversy?”  Analysis of the use of media by the denialists will likely identify ways to prevent future mistakes.  Chris Mooney recently posted a video that gives some clues to their techniques.  Don’t fall into this trap.

As for the international research integrity recommendations, we’ll have to wait until this fall to get the final draft.  Expect further comments shortly after the release of the draft document.