Climate scientists complain about Freedom of Information laws

[CDNBear]

For what?

For the whining.

It's all good to bitch about the Conservatives and the FoIA, but when it comes to your team, the tone changes.

It's cute.

[Stoney Toni]

For the whining.

It's all good to bitch about the Conservatives and the FoIA, but when it comes to your team, the tone changes.

It's cute.

The only change is in your mind. Read my posts again and point out where I said there should be less access to information.

[CDNBear]

The only change is in your mind. Read my posts again and point out where I said there should be less access to information.

You should obviously read mine again, and note the word tone.

And it's still cute.

[Stoney Toni]

You should obviously read mine again, and note the word tone.

And it's still cute.

My tone hasn't changed...I think that civilian funded science by the government should be easily and freely accessed by civilians, and within a reasonable time, which is no different than what I said last time.

Ski suggested they need to hire someone, and I replied that it would reduce efficiency of grant money, which is true. I would actually prefer that the grants and all correspondance go through an office that handles all of this, sort of like a government quality assurance department for research funding. It would meet the criteria above, as well as produce better quality science in Canada, though at a reduction in the quantity of research (unless the funds go up)...That doesn't change my views listed above, and elsewhere on the net.

[CDNBear]

My tone hasn't changed...

If you say so.

I get a completely different vibe here, than in the other discussion.

[Stoney Toni]

I get a completely different vibe here, than in the other discussion.

The other discussion was quite different though. Nobody really can stop the government from breaking time lines. A researcher can get their funds revoked if they don't comply. A researcher is free to speak to the media, unless they work for the government. Both produce science that is pay-walled.

The difference here (and I haven't even really discussed this yet) is that climate science is sort of the hot seat...particle physicists don't have to respond to the same volume of FOIA requests, and neither do evolutionary biologists, immunologists, or materials scientists. Most of the actual FOIA requests that Nurse was referring to happened because, climate data can often come from national meteorology agencies. Many of these agencies actually sell the data as a commercial product, and so researchers can't just give the information away, because they don't own the proprietary rights to the data. When they can't, then the contrarians get all hopped up, and think the scientist(s) are hiding something.

This subject is fairly comprehensive, and you and I have only touched the surface. I deal with these audit trails every day at work, and I think that academic science would actually benefit from what I already have to deal with in the commercial setting. If the tone sounds different, it's because I doubt most tax payers would be in favour of increasing funding to research for quality reasons, even if it would improve access to information.

Many people don't even realize the value of R&D to an economy.

[CDNBear]

Back to excuses.

[Mark]

Absolutely. But there are huge differences between an honest and competent audit, and one scientist getting ganged up by organized campaigns to shut down their work which disagrees with someone or some group's politics.

I agree there are idiots out there, but if we start denying access based on individuals that sets a very bad precedent.

We have audit trails at work, I work in development, and I know it's far more acceptable for us than it is for the research department. But that's the way it is. We are submitting dossiers to regulators to get our vaccines approved, and they must be able to see everything that went into the product.

There's a happy medium where audits can occur smoothly, and in a timely fashion, without grinding research to a halt. And that's the gist of Nurse's comments following from the report on open and informed policy from science.

Yes, but if you want to keep the science honest you have to keep it transparent and scrutiny must be arms lengthy. Even if it means entertaining the requests of nay sayers.

[Stoney Toni]

I agree there are idiots out there, but if we start denying access based on individuals that sets a very bad precedent.

I'm not talking about denying access. Quite to the contrary.

Yes, but if you want to keep the science honest you have to keep it transparent and scrutiny must be arms lengthy. Even if it means entertaining the requests of nay sayers.

That's why I suggested the equivalent of a quality assurance department for any researchers using government funds. It would have a full audit trail of all the data, as well as chain of custody. It would be more efficient for the grant agency to deal with requests for data than it would be for each individual researcher. Any naysayers could request the material, and do what they will, without slowing down the investigators.

Everybody wins. Though again, this means less research for the same amount of funding, but it's more research than if the scientists are dealing with administrative requests on an individual basis. And, the quality of the research is improved with greater transparency.

This really is standard in my workplace, I think personally it's only a matter of time before academics have to do the same. Some journals already require that researchers upload their data sets to a dedicated ftp site, as a requirement for publication.