RSC response to the disclosure of climate change data from the 

climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia 

Summary 

1. It is essential that the public and all non-specialists remain truly confident in the 

scientific method to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong 

decisions can be made. Correspondingly, it is in the interest of scientists and the 

public that society as a whole has an understanding and an appreciation of science. 

2. Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and 

enabling the discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing 

information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress 

is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different 

speciality areas. 

3. The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available 

and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific 

information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

Submission 

4. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) welcomes the opportunity to submit formal 

written evidence to the consultation on the disclosure of climate change data from 

the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia. 

5. The RSC is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and an international 

Learned Society for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of 

over 46,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing 

business, our activities span education and training, conferences and science 

policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public. 

6. The document has been written from the perspective of the Royal Society of 

Chemistry. It is noteworthy that the University of East Anglia is a member of the 

RSC Partnership Scheme, however this in no way constitutes a conflict of interest. 

The RSC’s Royal Charter obliges it to serve the public interest by acting in an 

independent advisory capacity, and we would therefore be very happy for this 

submission to be put into the public domain. 
• What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific 

research? 

7. The apparent resistance of researchers from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at 

the University of East Anglia (UEA) to disclose research data has been widely 

portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research. The true 

nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive 

scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that 

the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if 

this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching consequences for the 

reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public’s 

confidence in science. 

8. It is essential that the public and all non-specialists remain truly confident in the 

scientific method to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong 

decisions can be made. Correspondingly, it is in the interest of scientists and the 

public that society as a whole has an understanding and an appreciation of science. 

The RSC strongly supports the dissemination of chemical knowledge to foster and 

encourage the growth and application of the chemical sciences, as stated in its 

Royal Charter. This includes the dissemination of scientific knowledge as a means 

to advance public understanding and the learning of science. 

9. The dissemination of scientific information is central to progressing scientific 

developments, as it is based on a sound knowledge of preceding research.1 Access 

to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and enabling the 

discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information is 

especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much 

dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality 

areas. 

10.It is also imperative that scientific information is made available to the wider 

community for scrutiny: the validity and essence of research relies upon its ability 

to stand up to review. In fact, advances in science frequently occur when the 

prevailing view is challenged by informed scepticism, this is fundamental to the 

scientific method and should be encouraged, even if controversial. The RSC firmly 

believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to 

scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be 

made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act. 

Furthermore, research needs to be presented in an accurate and reliable manner in 

the correct context in order to optimise this process. It may also be necessary to 

incorporate an independent auditing system into peer review with the ability to 

demand access to raw data sets to ensure best practices are being adhered to. 

11.W the increased use of electronic media, access to information is wides

scientists and the public alike. While this is a great benefit to society, the qual

and validity of information available raises complex problems as valid scientific 

information and general opinion are presented side by side. The inability to 

decipher which information is legitimate, results in confusion, misinterpret

ith pread for 

ity 

ation 

 

1

 although serendipitous advances are also well recognised
and may lead to mistrust of ‘science’. There needs to be a clearer understanding in 

the public domain of what constitutes a reliable source, including an appreciation 

for the process that is used for disseminating research and the advantages of pe

review. 

er 

ty of 

in 

y 

ugh 

nges 

ch 

12.The peer review system is central to the credibility of science: its purpose to 

prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims and unacceptable interpretations. 

Formally published scientific research is subject to this authoritative process 

whereby a community of qualified, impartial experts examine the information and 

possess the ability to prevent publication. Authors generally protect their data until 

it has been peer-reviewed and published in a formal publication due to the 

competitive nature of research. 

13.The issue of misinformation in the public domain must also be tackled. Just as the 

scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who

disagree must also provide a clear and verifiable backing for their argument, if they 

wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreements occur, the validi

the analysis must be established before credence can be given to any opinion. 

Increased understanding of the process of scientific research, firstly in the 

government, but also within the media and general public, is vital in order to foster 

a more open sharing of information. 

14. Support from the scientific community is needed to provide context and to expla

the process by which conclusions are reached. Encouraging scientists to openly 

engage with the public can only be achieved if researchers are given the necessar

backing in the face of any unfounded arguments against their work. This support 

must come from the highest levels, sending out a strong message on the 

importance of scientific methodology and research and promoting open sharing of 

information between scientists and the wider community.

• Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced 

on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate? 

15.The terms of reference and scope of the independent review are adequate, altho

some wider reaching aspects must also be examined. The effect on other 

researchers working in this area such as independent researchers, as well as those 

collaborating with CRU, should be explored. The impact of this incident on the 

public perception of the CRU and UEA as a whole should also be considered as a 

measuring stick for the implications of such actions in the public domain. The 

manner in which the findings from the items set out are interpreted and applied 

will determine their value. 

16.As has been set out in the review, it is necessary to investigate the email excha

which were discovered along with other relevant CRU information to establish 

whether data have been manipulated or suppressed. This is, not only needed in 

order to identify any unacceptable behaviour, but also to verify the results whi

have been published. This is vital in clarifying the severity of the acts carried out 

by those scientists at the CRU involved, i.e. whether it was a misguided protection 

of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data. 
17.The review of practices surrounding CRU’s use of peer review and disse

of data should be used to shed light on how these comply with established bes

scientific practice. Any failings in this area should be examined in the context of 

the research methods used and any deviations should be assigned either to the 

individual researchers or to inadequate updating of the best practice to suit research 

in the digital age.

mination 

t 

 

2

 This will beget more valuable information on the motivation 

and the reasoning behind the conduct of researchers at CRU. 

18.Research institutions should review established protocols regarding the 

management of, and access to, research data to ensure that they remain up to date 

and clear. This process must be developed in collaboration with researchers so that 

its importance can be understood. The current practices in CRU and UEA must be 

examined to ensure the unit and the institution fulfil public regulations and that 

they offer support to researchers to ensure compliance. 

19.The review of the security issues surrounding the release of information is an 

important internal issue for CRU and UEA. Furthermore, the RSC supports 

investigations into the highly irregular manner in which information was obtained 

from the researchers. 

• How independent are the other two international data sets? 

20. From the information available, the RSC cannot comment on this issue. 

2

 “Ensuring the integrity, accessibility and stewardship of research data in the digital age” Committee 

on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age; National Academy of 

Sciences, 2009