"The failure of the University of East Anglia to respond substantially to the avalanche of invective from climate skeptics has been a PR disaster that undermined the reputation of science as well as the institution itself. One angry media insider says: “Their response will be taught in university communications courses. Because I’m going to make sure it is.” The university’s failure for a full fortnight to put up a single scientist to defend Phil Jones amounted to cruelty."
Much the same happened in the United States, with seasoned experts like Andrew Revkin at the New York Times feeling unwilling to defend people whose employers were leaving them to hang in the breeze.Några positiva effekter kan blir:
On the other hand, there could be some benefits for science from this whole incident, such as greater transparency and open data access.
Be transparent where possible. It’s easy to fall into a bunker mentality when you’re in the eye of a political storm. But, if the techniques had been explained openly, perhaps the skeptics wouldn’t have had so much ammunition.
Don’t try to bury dissent. This is tough, given the increasing politicization of the climate change debate. But, instead of discussing how to evade requests for data, or daydreaming of beating up deniers (as one scientist did) researchers and their agents should put themselves in the shoes of their antagonists. If they, the experts, can’t rise above ignorance and partisanship, how can we?
- Om reviewers har rätt så får man ju göra om eller skriva om sina analyser och ta med och ta hänsyn till synpunkterna.
- Om reviewers inte har rätt så får man ju motivera tydligare varför man gjort som man gjort.
- När en fråga retts ut så kommer en andra fråga om vad som helst annat.
- Sen dyker en ny "dissenting" person upp och ställer första frågan.