Scientific malpractice isn’t
Scientific malpractice is
Principles of scientific work
The controversial part
It’s not a bloody shovel
One of the most scrutinized and stringently regulated common professions is medicine. Just becoming a medical practitioner is a long and arduous process with strict standards, reviews and licensing.
Despite this system of oversights and checks medical malpractice still occurs, and far more frequently than we are really comfortable contemplating. Given that, is it really so shocking that there is such a thing as scientific malpractice and incompetence as well?
Of course science has standards and checks such as peer review to ensure that published scientific work itself is, by and large, competent. However there is no check on the competence of the scientists themselves beyond what their employer may choose to impose.
If only 1/10,000 scientists is incompetent it would still give us 6,000 to 7,000 of them skulking about. If the rate even approaches that of medical malpractice than we are talking at least 31,000, undoubtedly many more.
Scientific malpractice isn’t
We do not cite a physician for malpractice based on the conclusion (ie whether the patient was cured, remained sick, or even died), we do it because of negligence or incompetence in the treatment (eg administering the wrong medication).
In fact the physician is guilty of malpractice even if the patient is miraculously cured despite the physician’s incompetence, and equally innocent when competent treatment failed to save the patient .
In the same sense no scientist should be considered to be in the wrong just because they conclude that anthropogenic climate change is false, or that the Earth is flat, or that perpetual motion works. If they followed good and ethical practice and that is the logical interpretation of the data, then it would be unethical for them NOT to reach that conclusion.
The issue is “malpractice”, not ‘mal-results’ nor ‘mal-conclusions’ … ‘mal’ ie bad ‘practice.’
malpractice mal⋅prac⋅tice – noun
- failure of a professional person, as a physician or lawyer, to render proper services through reprehensible ignorance or negligence or through criminal intent, esp. when injury or loss follows.
- any improper, negligent practice; misconduct or misuse
Malpractice Definition | Definition of Malpractice at Dictionary.com
Scientific malpractice is
In the absence of National or International scientific bodies overseeing and regulating credentials there is no agreed upon standard. However, many agencies and institutions do define it (eg Scientific Integrity 101), and there are some perfectly acceptable ones available.
From the Humboldt Foundation
“Good scientific practice is “to work in accordance with the accepted standards of the discipline” and ” Scientific malpractice is the misrepresentation of facts in a scientific context, either consciously or due to gross negligence
Misrepresentation of facts such as forging or distorting data, for example by selecting and rejecting undesirable results without declaring them, or by manipulating illustrations or images.”
And from The John Innes Centre
“… fraud involves deliberate deception, including the invention of data, and the omission from analysis and publication of inconvenient data.”
A caution
“Don’t defame people. This should go without saying, but trivially accusing scientists of dishonesty, theft, academic malpractice and fraud pretty much rules you out of serious conversation. Instead it will serve mainly to marginalize you – though you may gain a devoted following among a specific subset. Don’t be surprised if as a consequence other people start to react negatively to your comments.”
There, it is said. The key point is that one should not be ” … trivially accusing scientists … ” We most certainly do not want to mimic the climate change Deniers with their trivial, malicious unsubstantiated accusations of malpractice and scientific fraud (eg here and here).
When malpractice is alleged it should be clearly documented, clearly malpractice &/or incompetence etc rather a single instance of human error, and clearly of such a basic and egregious nature as to be inexcusable in anyone possessing the credentials of a scientist.
Principles of scientific work
I am certainly not talking about labeling as malpractice cases where someone overlooked something that, in hindsight may have seemed obvious, choosing techniques that are accepted practice but more recently better ones have been developed, excluding a reference that really should have been used but was missed somehow, etc.
For the most part I am willing to accept as “honest error” just about anything and everything that is only detected as wrong by peers and authorities well versed in the specifics of the discipline, its’ literature and techniques.
Thus I would not for a moment allege malpractice in the case of Christy and Spencer failing to account for orbit decay in their satellite work. Some argue that it was very sloppy work, but it still seems to have been an honest error that many scientists did not spot.
However, I do think we need to start clearly identifying as gross negligence, professional malpractice or outright incompetence those numerous instances where people willfully engage in practices that are outrageous violations of the fundamentals of basic scientific work. I am referring to the flagrant abuses that would earn any college sophomore a failing grade on a term paper, such as:
- cherry picking and/or falsifying data;
- lying about and/or misrepresenting sources;
- ignoring or misrepresenting the accepted science;
- failing to learn even the elementary basics of research one is allegedly critiquing.
I repeat, these are not arcane, highly technical errors. These are flagrant abuses that 1st and 2nd year students are failed for committing. They are the scientific equivalent of a medical student not knowing the liver from the lungs. In someone with actual scientific credentials they are absolutely and utterly inexcusable.
The controversial part
The Homboldt Foundation defines malpractice as violations that occur ” … in a scientific context.” What is a scientific context? I submit that it is far broader than simply in the peer reviewed literature, grant applications, or when presenting at recognized scientific symposia.
I submit it is any time that someone is acting in the role of scientist and using their credentials as a source of legitimacy/authority.
This would include public talks, websites, articles, books, public debates, media interviews and so on.
Whenever someone claims to be acting “as a scientist” and/or is aware that they are being consulted in that capacity, and who then goes on to commit the kinds of frauds, lies and incompetence described above, is guilty of professional malpractice.
Is this defensible? of course it is. A Dr who counsels amputating the head is not excused simply because they were off duty. Possessing the credential of a professional obligates one to act as a professional, all the more so when one is using that credential as a source of legitimacy.
I can’t put it simpler than that … by claiming the authority of a scientist you de facto accept the responsibility to act like one, and when you do not you are guilty of malpractice.
I note above that I would not argue malpractice in the case of Spencer and Christy’s satellite work. They came to the wrong conclusions, but apparently for the right reasons (or so it seemed at the time). Fair enough, but what are we to make of:
“I find it astounding that the IPCC has ignored the potential role of natural climate variability in global warming. In any other realm of science we are careful to look for alternative explanations for some phenomenon…but today, mankind is the only allowable reason for climate change.”
That is an outright lie, and it is a scientific claim being made in a scientific context by “Climate Scientist Dr. Spencer.” Malpractice? you bet.
I also semi-tongue in cheek suggest that the signers of the Oregon Petition qualify. Yes and no. In the past I have argued that signing the petition was in effect stating that “I, the undersigned, in an act of flagrant professional misconduct …” That’s pretty much true.
The Oregon Petition which they signed states:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere & disruption of the earth’s climate.”
Putting aside the peculiar limitation of the heating to the atmosphere, as read the weasel word “convincing” gives plausible deniability. After all, who can say what is “convincing?”
Actually science can. We have measures of confidence, rules such as Occam’s razor, falsifiability and so on to determine what it “convincing” and what is not. It is not left to the opinion of individuals, even individuals who are scientists.
If, as a professional, they wish to argue those rules and standards are insufficient across the board for all disciplines then let them do so. If they accept those standards in any context, then they can bloody well accept them for all of science.
So am I willing to say that Ian Plimer, Kary Mullis, Richard Keen, Bob Carter (and here), Fred Singer, Tim Ball and more than a few others are guilty of professional malpractice &/ or gross incompetence? Absolutely!
They are clearly guilty of it, and I see no advantage to pretending otherwise. I think we should all be saying it; call it what it is, gross incompetence. Not for their conclusions, but for their methods.
It’s not a bloody shovel
I know there will be some blow back about tyrannical thought control, academic freedom and the like. We reject all of those arguments with regard to doctors, lawyers, police, firemen and even kitchen workers because their right to an opinion is not in question. It is how they practice their profession that is at issue.
We are really talking about the non-existent right to fail to meet minimal standards of competence for your profession, and doing so in a manner that harms, or threatens to harm the well being of others. There is no such right.
Instead there is a broadly recognized responsibility across many professions to meet those minimal standards or suffer the consequences.
Except in the sciences.
Outside of the literature and a few other venues you may be as incompetent, negligent, unprofessional and fraudulent as you like, regardless that it puts the well being of all of humanity at stake. That has to stop.
We need to start treating scientists as if their competence was at least as important as that of a restaurant dishwasher.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Patterson’s Spade Mill By itmpa
Patterson’s Spade Mill By itmpa
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
“I’VE CHANGED MY MIND”……….declarations, however unlikely, deserve a place in this discussion. These scientists are backed into a corner, of clouds and sensitivity, while overwhelmingly the latest news and research are against them.
Practically, the desired outcome is only for the opposition to the obvious to go away. The malpractice metaphor suggests a judgement with consequences. When all the earth needs are 10 year probations during which they are forbidden to utter publicly the words ‘go slow’ and ‘geoengineering’.
HERESIES WITHIN CLIMATE SKEPTICISM……….exist. The toleration thereof should also be included in the malpractice charge.
Spencer and Christy are mentioned above. Michaels and
Lindzen recently testified before a House subcommittee. They are the establishment (enough climate science to get the PhD, and be accepted by their peers) skeptic climate scientists.
They are the standard bearers for a cause (as seen under the Big Tent at WUWT) exhibiting a much wider, and contradictory, set of beliefs. For example, it’s the sun, and it’s not getting warmer, and it couldn’t be due to CO2, etc..
These Big Tent beliefs are actually as heretical to the climate science of the skeptic scientists, as they are heretical to the climate science of everybody else.
And yet the skeptic scientists still associate with their own heretics, without making any attempt to correct them.
Blinders on, under the Big Tent.
I guess this is a problematic discussion, but I agree, a necessary one.
Plimer, Carter, Singer, Ball… incompetent, and completely lacking in accountability despite actively trying to influence public understanding.
Perhaps not surprisingly, they seem unconcerned about the state of their own incompetence.
They lack social as well as professional responsibility, since they would make no room at the decision-making table for women, youth or anyone other than those at the top of the pyramid.
Things are really out of balance when we can’t hear the voices of all the competent scientists and the public, over these talking heads.
It’s outrageous.