The Providence (R.I.) Journal, March 12:
With the Earth’s very ecosystem threatened by the massive burning of fossil fuels, the passion of politicians to shut down debate about aspects of climate change is understandable. But that does not make it right. A vigorous debate about exactly what is happening to the Earth and what we should do about it is absolutely essential if we are to move forward.
Intimidating scientists is the wrong approach.
Late last month, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., the ranking member on the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, opened an investigation into the work of seven prominent academics, mostly climate scientists, including MIT emeritus professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen and the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke.
What each of Grijalva’s targets had in common was that they differ with many scientists and politicians on elements of climate change theory.
Representative Grijalva wrote letters to the seven universities with whom each targeted scientist is affiliated, demanding that they hand over documents pertaining to each researcher’s work, including details on grants and funding. He also asked that the universities turn over “drafts of testimony … delivered before any government body” as well as “communications regarding testimony preparation.”
The next day, three senators, including Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, demanded that more than 100 energy and trade groups disclose their roles in funding science research. These moves were apparently a result of a New York Times report that Wei-hock Soon, a scientist associated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, had received some funding from the fossil fuel industry.
Many found the politicians’ actions chilling. Politicians have power and influence, and federal dollars are essential to universities. How likely are scientists to publish controversial research if they fear that, in doing so, they may jeopardize their careers or get hauled before a congressional committee?
Soon called the inquiry “a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher” who may question any element of orthodoxy. The American Meteorological Society wrote: “(R)equesting copies of the researcher’s communications related to external funding opportunities or the preparation of testimony impinges on the free pursuit of ideas that is central to the concept of academic freedom.”
After defenders of scientific freedom spoke out, the Arizona congressman admitted that he had “overreached” and will no longer seek the scientists’ communications. But he still wants information on their funding.
That seems an overreach, too. While conflicts of interest may occur in any human endeavor, and scientists and universities should make it a habit to disclose the source of their funding to the public, politicians in a liberal democracy must be cautious about chilling science and public debate. After all, the whole point of science is the unbridled search for truth. Under scientific freedom, unfounded theories may be debunked, and scientists who distort data may be discredited.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
