Nine months ago, I posted on the interesting controversy surrounding a Scientific American review of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist ("Science Defends Itself Against the Skeptical Environmentalist").

List members may be interested to hear the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, responding to three complaints from other researchers, has now found Lomborg guilty of scientific dishonesty, using the expert opinion contained in the Scientific American review as their primary evidence.

According to the judgment: "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty." 

In mitigation, it says that "In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjorn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization."

The full ruling is here: http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm

Clarifying the ruling, the Director of the Danish research agency made the following statement: "The decision does not take a stance - nor is it supposed to take a stance - on whether Bjørn Lomborg's theories are right or wrong, no more so in fact than the decision elucidates whether his critics' theories are right or wrong. In principle, that cannot be decided unequivocally and - to put it suitably blunt - is completely immaterial to the scientific-ethical aspect of the case." Instead, it is Lomborg's methodology that is criticised, that "he has made a severely biased selection of sources favouring his theories." 

The full statement is here: http://uk.cambridge.org/economics/lomborg/websites4.htm

Anti-Lomborgians are delighted (http://newsroom.wri.org/newsrelease_text.cfm?NewsReleaseID=196)

Pro-Lomborgians have reacted with fury ("The panel's ruling-objectively speaking-is incompetent and shameful." http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1522706)

This one will run and run...

David

_____________________ 
David Steven 
River Path Associates 
W www.riverpath.com
W www.davidsteven.com 
T +44 (0)1202 849993 
M +44 (0)7939 038832
E [log in to unmask] 
_____________________ 


-----Original Message-----
From: David Steven 
Sent: 05 June 2002 15:51
To: Psci-Com (E-mail)
Subject: science defends itself... against the parasite load


Have been away from the list for a while, so you may all have covered this, but I have only just come across the juicy controversy Scientific American ignited when reviewing Bjorn Lomborg's recent book: http://www.sciam.com/2002/0102issue/0102skeptical.html

The article's subtitle, "Science Defends Itself Against the Skeptical Environmentalist", is reminiscent of Nature's famous headline "A Book Fit for Burning?" employed when reviewing Rupert Sheldrake's work. Lomborg defended himself forcefully on his website - interspersing the SA text with a commentary (http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm).

SA then threatened to sue for breach of copyright and Lomborg was forced to pull some of his response - though it has been picked up by other sites (i.e. here: http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/). It also responded to Lomborg's response: http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2002/041502lomborg/rennie.html and http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2002/041502lomborg/holdren.html

And The Economist weighed in, attacking both SA and EO Wilson: "E.O. Wilson... deplores "the Lomborg scam" because of "the extraordinary amount of scientific talent that has to be expended to combat [him] in the media...[Mr Lomborg and his kind] are the parasite load on scholars who earn success through the slow process of peer review and approval."... Mr Wilson's insufferable arrogance is bad enough, but there's worse. The fuss over Mr Lomborg highlights an attitude among some media-conscious scientists that militates not just against good policy but against the truth. Stephen Schneider, one of Scientific American's anti-Lomborgians, spoke we suspect not just for himself when he told Discover in 1989: "[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place...To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." In other words, save science for other scientists, in peer-reviewed journals and other sanctified places. In public, strike a balance between telling the truth and telling necessary lies."

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=965718 (subscriber access only)

David

_____________________ 
David Steven 

River Path Associates 
E [log in to unmask]
E [log in to unmask]
T +44 (0)1202 849993 
W www.riverpath.com 

In Boston
E [log in to unmask] 
W www.davidsteven.com/seminar 
____________________ 



=======================================================================
    This email has been scanned for Virus infection by MessageLabs
     For more information please contact [log in to unmask] 
=======================================================================

**********************************************************************

1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:

set psci-com nomail

2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:

set psci-com mail

3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:

leave psci-com

4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html

5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************