### 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 pu blic and all non-specialists re main truly confident in the scientific method to provide a sound sc ientific evidence-b ase 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 unders tanding and an appreciation of science.

2. Access to reliable, up-to-date informati on 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 e ffective 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 perc eived 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 di sclosure of climate change data from

the climatic research unit at th e University of East Anglia.

5. The RSC is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and an international Learned Society for advancing the chemi cal sciences. Supported by a network of over 46,000 members worldwide and an in ternationally acclaimed publishing business, our activities sp an education and training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the ch emical sciences to the public.

6. The document has been written from the perspective of the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is noteworthy that the Universi ty 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 se rve the public interest by acting in an independent advisory capac ity, and we would therefore be very happy for this submission to be put into the public domain.• What are the implications of the disclo sures 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 disseminat e scientific information may infer that

the scientific results or methods used ar e 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 pu blic and all non-specialists re main truly confident in the scientific method to provide a sound sc ientific evidence-b ase 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 unders tanding and an appreciation of science. The RSC strongly supports the disseminati on of chemical knowledge to foster and encourage the growth and app lication of the chemical sciences, as stated in its Royal Charter. This includes the dissemina tion of scientific k nowledge as a means to advance public understanding and the learning of science.

9. The dissemination of scientific informati on is central to pr ogressing scientific developments, as it is based on a sound knowledge of preceding research. 1 Access to reliable, up-to-date information is v ital 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 comm unication between different speciality

areas.

10. It is also imperative that scientific in formation 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 da ta 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 presen ted 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 rais es complex problems as valid scientific information and general opinion are pres ented side by side. The inability to decipher which information is legitimate, results in confusio n, misinterpret ith pread for ity

ation

1 although serendipitous advances are also well recognisedand 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 dissemina ting research and the advantages of pe

review. er

ty of

in

y

ugh

nges

ch 12. The peer review system is central to th e credibility of scie nce: 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 preven t 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 dom ain must also be t ackled. Just as the scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree must also provide a clear and veri fiable backing for their argument, if they wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreements occur, the validi the analysis must be established befo re 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 ge neral public, is vital in order to foster a more open sharing of information.

14. Support from the scientific community is ne eded to provide context and to expla the process by which conclusions are reach ed. 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 argum ents against their work. This support must come from the highest levels , sending out a strong message on the importance of scientific methodology and re search and promoting open sharing of

information between scientis ts 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 su ch 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 n ecessary to investigate the email excha which were discovered along with other re levant 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 w ith established bes scientific practice. Any faili ngs in this area should be examined in the context of the research methods used and any deviati ons 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 c onduct 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 curr ent practices in CRU and UEA must be

examined to ensure the unit and the ins titution fulfil public regulations and that they offer support to researchers to ensure compliance.

19. The review of the security issues surr ounding the release of information is an important internal issue for CRU and UEA. Furthermore, the RSC supports investigations into the hi ghly 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 re search data in the digital age” Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age; National Academy of Sciences, 2009