#scientific integrity

[iheartvelma]

Q&A: The scientific integrity sleuth taking on the widespread problem of research misconduct

Scientific integrity sleuth Elisabeth Bik, a member of the 2024 #STATUSList, is taking on the widespread problem of research misconduct.

Elizabeth Bik is a hero.

[aaronstjames]

Archaeologists Ask Netflix to Reclassify Graham Hancock's 'Unfounded' Netflix Docuseries 'Ancient Apocalypse' as Fiction | Artnet News

Archaeologists around the world are disputing Graham Hancock's latest psuedo-archaeological docuseries on Atlantis for Netflix.

Fuck that guy.

[rjzimmerman]

Revamping Federal Climate Science - Center for American Progress

The urgency of the climate crisis requires day one executive action to restore scientific integrity and rebuild the federal climate science apparatus.

Excerpt from this proposal from the Center for American Progress:

The United States has been the global leader in climate science for decades. Unfortunately, progress has slowed—and in some cases, even moved backward—over the past four years, with the Trump administration dismantling core elements of the federal climate science apparatus. As the country and the planet head toward an increasingly unstable climate, the U.S. government needs to get back to the business of being the preeminent source of trusted applied science that supports climate change mitigation and adaptation decision-making of governments and civilian stakeholders.

The science is clear: To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the United States and the world must take aggressive action to decarbonize all sectors of the global economy, protect the Earth’s natural systems, and limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. This means achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions globally by no later than 2050 and ensuring an equitable and just transition to a clean energy economy. Course-correcting the United States on tackling the multifaceted climate crisis is among the top challenges that the incoming Biden administration will have to address head-on. To do so, the administration must take a number of significant actions. These include setting a midcentury economywide decarbonization goal; taking steps to reduce toxic pollution in low-income communities and communities of color; making a public commitment to conserve and protect 30 percent of U.S. lands and oceans by 2030; and updating the United States’ nationally determined contribution under the Paris climate agreement. For each of these major goals, the federal government must provide the scientific research and data to inform its mitigation and adaptation strategies as well as the decision-making of a wide variety of stakeholders who must respond to the climate crisis as it evolves.

This report provides a blueprint for how the Biden administration can restore, restructure, and expand federal climate science to support a bold, whole-of-government approach to tackle the climate crisis. It synthesizes recommendations that the Center for American Progress has collected from top climate science and policy experts who have worked across the federal government and academia. To address the scale of the climate coordination challenge, the report recommends actions to restore scientific integrity (SI) across the federal government; expand and improve the federal climate science workforce; make structural changes within the White House and federal agencies to support effective climate science prioritization and coordination across physical science research, mitigation, and adaptation; and prioritize international climate science collaboration. The Appendix provides a list of sources for reference and further reading.

[sarcasticcynic]

Scientific integrity bill advances in U.S. House with bipartisan support

Democrats drop some provisions to gain Republican backing and improve chances of final passage

In 2010, President Obama issued an executive order directing federal research agencies to develop and follow clear principles designed to protect scientists and the research they carry out from political influence. Several agencies have complied, but some have indicated no intention to do so. So Democrats in the House of Representatives have sponsored the Scientific Integrity Act, a law that would require federal agencies not only to develop and follow such principles, but also to train on the topic and monitor any alleged violations.

The bill has 226-cosponsors, all Democratic. Not a single Republican would back the bill. For some reason, they seem to think it might be “a response to actions taken to curtail the use and dissemination of research by President Donald Trump and his appointees at several agencies, notably the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior.” It was referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology back in March, where it has been languishing ever since.

As originally drafted, one of the bill’s provisions would have given government scientists “the right to say yes to media requests, without prior clearance from agency officials.” In an effort to gain Republican support, the bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Paul Tonko, amended the bill to require agencies instead to set guidelines for how scientists may respond to media requests, which “shall not delay or impede without scientific merit the communication of scientific or technical findings.” But even that was too much for Republicans to stomach, so the top Republican on the Committee, Rep. Frank Lucas, submitted an amendment eliminating the provision in its entirety.

Democrats accepted the deletion, and Lucas then got enough Republicans to support the bill that the Committee finally passed it last week. Six Republicans still voted against it, however, so the vote was 25-6.

[birdsbirdsbirds--andperhapsapug]

Northern Cardinal--Seeing Red, Oakton, Virginia, March 15, 2017

Exclusive: U.S. group Sierra Club seeks probe of EPA's Pruitt over CO2 comments   

U.S. environmental group the Sierra Club has asked the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general to investigate whether the agency's head, Scott Pruitt, violated internal policies when he said he did not believe carbon dioxide was a major contributor to climate change, according to a letter seen by Reuters on Wednesday.

Lawyers for the Sierra Club wrote to the EPA's Office of Inspector General on Tuesday asking the independent watchdog to check whether Pruitt violated the EPA's 2012 Scientific Integrity Policy when he told a CNBC interviewer on March 9, "I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."

The request ramps up tension between the U.S. environmental movement and the administration of President Donald Trump, who has called global warming a hoax meant to weaken the U.S. economy and has packed his Cabinet with people who question the science of climate change.

An overwhelming majority of scientists think that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels is a major contributor to global climate change, triggering sea level rise, droughts and more frequent violent storms.

"It's pretty unprecedented to have the head of the EPA contradicting basic scientific facts," Sierra Club Senior Attorney Elena Saxonhouse told Reuters on Wednesday. (REUTERS, March 15, 2017--By Emily Flitter, NY)

[march4science]

How A Funding Crunch Can Negatively Affect Scientific Integrity

For more information, check out the original story here. 

Image Credit: NPR Policy-ish

[oilchangeus-blog]

From the muzzling of scientists and government agencies, to the immigration ban, the deletion of scientific data, and the de-funding of public science, the erosion of our institutions of science is a dangerous direction for our country. Real people and communities bear the brunt of these actions. The annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) brings thousands of scientists together and offers a global stage to send a message at this pivotal moment: we must Stand Up for Science. RSVP HERE! We will be streaming live.

[currentsinbiology]

Unnecessarily snarky (juvenile?)  last question - don’t we all want vaccine safety and scientific integrity - ? (and the rates of infectious diseases plummeted over the last century, before the miracle of vaccination.)

Too much money, too little testing, too much risk, too little liability... All reasons to be overly cautious.

Exclusive Q&A: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Trump's proposed vaccine commission