There is also an excellent opinion piece on this saga by Fred Pearce in the
latest issue of New Scientist.
"Call off the witch hunt"
"Environmentalists do themselves no favours by demonising their adversaries.
Science needs its dissidents and mavericks.."
Fred's analysis of the Danish report would appear to be at variance, or
maybe less selective, or even selective in a different way, from the
impression conveyed by the inevitably brief account that appears below.
As David says, this one will indeed run and run.
MK
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on the public understanding of science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Steven
Sent: 16 January 2003 14:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: science defends itself... the verdict is in
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
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
|