29 Jul 2011
Researchers should be forced to fully disclose data and evidence during the peer-review process for UK research, according to a report from The Science and Technology Committee.
This will better protect the integrity of UK research, said the report.
Peer review is the process by which experts review new research and establish whether or not it is suitable for release to a wider readership.
"Although it is not the role of peer review to police research and integrity and identity fraud or misconduct, it does, on occasion, identify suspicious cases," said Andrew Miller MP, chair of the Committee.
"While there is guidance in place for journal editors when ethical misconduct is suspected, we found the general oversight of research integrity in the UK to be unsatisfactory and complacent."
The investigation into the peer-review process by the Science and Technology Committee followed the alleged attempts made by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia to deliberately manipulate climate data so that it supported its global warming claims.
In addition, several media reports claimed that CRU attempted to abuse the process of peer review to prevent the publication of research papers with conflicting opinions about climate change.
Investigations cleared the scientists involved of any fraud or misconduct. However, the report suggests that data should be fully disclosed throughout the peer review process in a bid to support decisions to publish research.
The peer-review report states the following: "The best way to ensure that test results are verified would be for scientists to register their detailed experimental protocols before starting their research and disclose full results and data when the research is done.
"Currently, results are often selectively reported, emphasising the most exciting among them and outsiders frequently do not have access to the information they might need to replicate studies. Journals and funding agencies should strongly encourage full public availability of all data and analytical methods for each published paper."
However, despite this recommendation, the report also says that making data available and open isn't always economically feasible and could prove to be a challenge for research bodies.
Sir Mark Walport from the Wellcome Trust provided information for the report, but argued that there are "major costs" involved with making data available and added that the "costs of storing the data may in the future exceed the costs of generating it".
Dr Philip Campbell, from publishing group Nature, also contributed to the investigation and provided an example of the potential costs involved in making data, software and codes available:
"I was talking to a researcher the other day and he had been asked to make his code accessible. He had to go to the Department of Energy for a grant to make it so," he said.
"He was asking for $300,000, which was the cost of making that code completely accessible and usable by others. In that particular case the grant was not given. It is a big challenge in computer software and we need to do better than we are doing".
Dr Malcolm Read, executive security for digital technology promoters JISC, explained why research bodies may find it difficult to make code available.
"If you are talking about stuff running on so-called super-computers, you have to know quite a lot about the machine and the environment it is running on," said Read.
"It is very difficult to run some of those top-end computer applications, even if, of course, they are prepared to make their code available".
I was listening to a scientist the other day whom I unfortunately had to charge for the privilege of my having done so, quite exorbitantly, I should add.
Indeed, if I wish to add, then I believe I should do so.
Time and again people, from all walks of life, including excessively long walks, have begged me to add but so far I have only been able to subtract.
As I happen to be more qualified in every subject known to mankind than any other living scientist and those that have gone before me ( I taught Einstein how to count and corrected his mathematical papers so many times I eventually lost my count as well as my normally phlegmatic temperament) then as I said previously, I should add.
Furthermore, considering my inordinately high salary as a government scientist, then it would be only fair if I was able to:
'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'.
Posted by: Furthermore! 31 Jul 2011
I often see research groups that are made up cartels of people related to each other, often husband and wife plus other relatives or very close friends. This makes it easy for corruption to occur and funds disappear to pay for business class air tickets to 'holiday' conferences or unnecessary laptops that end up on ebay. These groups exist just to exist (and give their members an easy job). They tend to produce bad research that are often duplicates of what has already been done.
Posted by: Gavin Bowring 31 Jul 2011
The scientific consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions have caused and will continue to cause average global temperatures to rise. The only uncertainty is by how much.
As a scientist you should be able to cite recent evidence that the climate scientists have got it all wrong.
So what is it?
Posted by: A-Scientist not-a-banker 31 Jul 2011
"I was talking to a researcher the other day and he had been asked to make his code accessible. He had to go to the Department of Energy for a grant to make it so," he said."
I put my code on Google sites for free. As someone else wrote, this researcher is taking the mickey.
Posted by: Scientist 31 Jul 2011
btw, John Heery is vastly more correct than A-scientist-not-a-banker. CDOs did not disguise poor quality debt and anyone who thinks so has no clue about them. John Heery's summary of what caused the credit crunch is pretty much spot-on.
btw II, i've seen two massive alarm bells in the markets over the last couple of weeks. only seen them twice before : a month before Lehmans went under and the credit crunch kicked off, and in '98 when Russia went under and LTCM etc went under and the banks nearly did. just a heads-up. go to cash or gold. all the good traders have.
Posted by: A Banker AND A Scientist 30 Jul 2011
ah yes, the climate data fiasco.
interestingly, it is now almost impossible to access climate data. 10 years ago, that was not the case. and the sole accessible data (HADCRUT) has been deliberately scrambled and fluffed by publishing it as a seasonally adjusted report rather than just the raw data (which would be much easier).
10 years ago, the data was quite clear : ground temperatures were rising faster than air temperatures. this by itself knocks the Anthropogenic Global Warming from Greenhouse Gasses campaign on its head.
the quality of the "research" done in this field is execrable. data validity errors, model errors, proxy errors, and overwhelmingly all the drama-papers are comparing model to model. or to put it another way: invalid.
Posted by: A Banker AND A Scientist 30 Jul 2011
"I was talking to a researcher the other day and he had been asked to make his code accessible. He had to go to the Department of Energy for a grant to make it so," he said.
"He was asking for $300,000, which was the cost of making that code completely accessible and usable by others. In that particular case the grant was not given. It is a big challenge in computer software and we need to do better than we are doing".
----
what absolute tosh. when i decided to test garch on the options markets, kroner and engles simply lobbed me their code. i ported it to unix, ran it, and lobbed it back to them as a favour. this guys is taking the... mickey.
Posted by: A Banker AND A Scientist 30 Jul 2011
The misuse of collateralized debt obligations was a major contributor to the recent financial crisis. These agreements were high risk bad debt disguised as low risk good debt. No modelling (certainly not scientific) was required to conceal their true nature. Greed and a poor rating system were sufficient.
The CRU team did not provide their raw data when it was requested (often by politically driven non-scientists who had no intention of performing their own analysis) and this was found to be a failing by an investigation into the so called “Climategate” e-mail leaks. What the investigation did not find was "deliberate manipulation" of data that this article states as fact.
The CRU has already released raw temperature data on the Met Office website.
So what's actually going on? Is there a global left-wing conspiracy by climate scientists to destroy the Western economy through carbon taxes imposed by our ignorant political masters or are scientists trying hard to work out just how bad things will be even if we do manage to cut back on CO2 production in the next decade?
Get the answer through your own research. Nothing beats reading peer reviewed articles in respected journals. Like all scientists Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Galileo and even Kenneth Page Oakley followed the evidence to arrive at a better understanding of the world and our place within it.
Posted by: A-Scientist not-a-banker 30 Jul 2011
I was saddened to read the comments of “a scientist not a banker” who was afraid to reveal his identity, although I don't altogether blame him as he probably also believes the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and in Piltdown man. Even his nom de plume is revelatory - it was a combination of scientific financial modelling, and ignorant senior bank executives egged on by the even more ignorant political elite that caused the banking collapse in both the USA and UK. Of course, scientific climate modelling, and ignorant senior university incumbents egged on by the even more ignorant political elite, could never repeat such a collapse. NOT!
Posted by: John Heery 30 Jul 2011
"..attempts made by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia to deliberately manipulate climate data so that it supported its global warming claims."
The scientists did not manipulate data as investigations into the leaked e-mails clearly revealed. Check your facts before spurting out climate denier mistruths. Clearly career in banking is no qualification for scientific journalism.
Posted by: A-Scientist not-a-banker 29 Jul 2011
Have your say on this article
Newsletters
Latest stories from Government
You may also like
Government jobs
Technology Patent Wars
Case studies from large organisations across all sectors
... And rich media, and flexible working, and peaks in traffic ...
Upcoming Events
Join us for this Computing web seminar, in which the Head of BI at the Co-operative Group Nick Colebourn will be explaining just how he reigned in the Group’s sprawling database estate and how significant savings were realised and data quality improved as a result.
Date: 31 May 2012
Time: 11:00 AM
Live June 13th 11:00am: Register now. During this web seminar we will be looking at the sorts of incidents that can bring data centres grinding to a halt and what can be done about them.
Date: 13 Jun 2012
Time: 11:00 am
Receive the latest jobs direct to your inbox
Are you being paid what you are worth?
