1

Memoranda Submitted to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 

Investigation 

1. Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics .........................................................2 

2. Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society of Chemistry............................................5 

3. Memorandum submitted by the Royal Statistical Society.................................................9 
2

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39) 

 

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East 

Anglia

 

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding 

and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading 

communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to 

government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in 

scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics. 

 

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and 

Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research 

Unit at the University of East Anglia'. 

 

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was 

prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group. 

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

 

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or 

adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and 

for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context. 

 

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and 

co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information 

law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to 

independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, 

procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of 

the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails 

were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also 

involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. 

 

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that 

are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges: 

 

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures 

such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and 

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings. 

 

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th 

century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the 

raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. 

Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This 
3

possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further 

information. 

 

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise 

questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent 

suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not 

agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements. 

 

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the 

e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of 

the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU emails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and 

objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation. 

 

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of 

the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, 

the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of 

networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be 

electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility. 

 

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater 

transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting 

down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. 

Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would 

be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at 

various levels. 

 

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of 

time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the 

original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any 

subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, 

necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, 

consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to 

computer modelling. 

 

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 

2009 by UEA adequate?

 

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific 

malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the emails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the 

formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were 

complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity 

of the scientific process in this field. 

 
4

11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of 

data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined 

and might better be replaced with 'objective'. 

 

12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's 

policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect 

of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the 

publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific 

objectivity. 

How independent are the other two international data sets? 

 

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and 

adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such 

processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. 

Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing 

between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw. 

 

The Institute of Physics 

February 2010 
5

Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society of Chemistry (CRU 42) 

Summary 

 

· 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. 

 

· 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. 

 

· 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 

1. 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. 

 

2. 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. 

3. 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?

 

4. 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. 

 
6

5. 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. 

 

6. 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. 

 

7. 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. 

 

8. With the increased use of electronic media, access to information is widespread for scientists 

and the public alike. While this is a great benefit to society, the quality 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, misinterpretation 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 peer 

review. 

 

9. 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. 

10. 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 
7

weight. When disagreements occur, the validity of 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. 

 

11. Support from the scientific community is needed to provide context and to explain the 

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

public can only be achieved if researchers are given the necessary 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?

 

12. The terms of reference and scope of the independent review are adequate, although 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. 

 

13. As has been set out in the review, it is necessary to investigate the email exchanges 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 which 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. 

 

14. The review of practices surrounding CRU's use of peer review and dissemination of data 

should be used to shed light on how these comply with established best 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.[2] This will beget more valuable information on 

the motivation and the reasoning behind the conduct of researchers at CRU. 

 

15. 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. 

 

16. 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. 
8

 

· How independent are the other two international data sets?

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

 Royal Society of Chemistry 

February 2010 

1

 although serendipitous advances are also well recognized 

[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 
9

Memorandum submitted by the Royal Statistical Society (CRU 47)

1. The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) is the UK's only professional and learned society devoted 

to the interests of statistics and statisticians. Founded in 1834 it is also one of the most influential 

and prestigious statistical societies in the world. The Society has members in over 50 countries 

worldwide and is active in a wide range of areas both directly and indirectly pertaining to the 

study and application of statistics. It aims to promote public understanding of statistics and 

provide professional support to users of statistics and to statisticians. 

 

2. The Society welcomes this opportunity to submit evidence to the Science and Technology 

committee on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of 

East Anglia inquiry. 

 

3. The Society's response relates to the first of the questions on which the committee invites 

submissions: "What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific 

research?" 

 

4. The RSS believes that the debate on global warming is best served by having the models used 

and the data on which they are based in the public domain. Where such information is publicly 

available it is possible independently to verify results. The ability to verify models using publicly 

available data is regarded as being of much greater importance than the specific content of email 

exchanges between researchers. 

 

5. The position of the RSS regarding public dissemination of scientific data is that where the 

results of scientific analyses have been published or are otherwise in the public domain, the raw 

data, and associated meta-data, used for these analyses should, within reason, also be made 

available. 

 

6. The qualification, within reason, is important because there are some cases where preservation 

of confidentiality is required to protect the rights of individuals to privacy. There are also 

occasions where the need to protect sensitive areas means that publication of all details is 

inappropriate. An example would be the exact locations of rare breeding species. Similarly, there 

are other occasions where overriding commercial interests may suggest that publication is 

inappropriate. 

 

7. However, it is the view of the RSS that such commercial interest will only justifiably be 

invoked infrequently. An analogy with the common approach to patents is appropriate here. 

Companies may choose to keep their research secret and not patent it. However, if a patent is 

sought, the details of the invention must be revealed. Analogously, in the field of drug 

development, a pharmaceutical company is reimbursed not just because of the molecules it has 

discovered but also because of the knowledge it has acquired regarding the effects of those 

molecules. It cannot justifiably seek reimbursement for that knowledge and not make it 

available. Hence, by the point at which it seeks a commercial return, the data on efficacy and 

safety should be in the public domain. 

 
10

8. It is also clearly unreasonable to require that any given scientist having published some 

research is then condemned to answer each and every question that might possibly arise from it.. 

For example, requests under the Freedom of Information act or the Environmental Information 

Regulations could overwhelm small groups of scientists. To avoid this it is best if data are stored 

in data centres that are professionally run and properly funded. 

 

9. More widely, the basic case for publication of data includes that science progresses as an 

ongoing debate and not by a series of authoritative and oracular pronouncements and that the 

quality of that debate is best served by ensuring that all parties have access to the facts. It is well 

understood, for example, that peer review cannot guarantee that what is published is 'correct'. 

The best guarantor of scientific quality is that others are able to examine in detail the arguments 

that have been used and not just their published conclusions. It is important that experiments and 

calculations can be repeated to verify their conclusions. If data, or the methods used, are 

withheld, it is impossible to do this. 

 

10. The RSS believes that a crucial step in improving the quality of the debate on global 

warming will be to place the data, the analysis methods and the models in the public domain. 

 

 

 

Royal Statistical Society 

February 2010