If you bothered to read the Guardian piece, you'd recognize that the scandal here is not about how scientists do their research, but deals with the indefensible costs of the scientific journals who profit from research papers that they review and publish. In the days of print publishing, there was an excuse for paying a subscription to a journal to review a research paper, but in the modern internet era, these journals keep research locked down so they can keep on collecting subscription fees from everyone who wants to access them. This is many climate scientists have put research online for the public, when they feel it is in the public interest to know about it. It was the publishing scam that served as the backdrop behind a young computer (I forgot his name) scientist who committed suicide rather than face a long prison sentence for posting thousands of research papers sequestered on JSTOR.
But, the problem with open access journals - which earn their fees by collecting money upfront for publishing, rather than subscription fees, is that any idiot and his brother can start an open access journal and publish online. No surprise that quality standards are lower as a result.
The "scandal" in science...if you're really concerned about this becoming a problem, is where big money is directly behind the research itself. A quick example is medical and drug testing. There have been numerous cases where a pharmaceutical company is funding the research and demands confidentiality agreements signed by the scientists...in other words they are sworn to secrecy on penalty of libel if they divulge any information that Big Pharma doesn't want to get out to the public. And Big Pharma doesn't have to get into the lab work and make scientists alter their work or do something illegal -- the most common abuse is a drug manufacturer running a multitude of double blind research tests until they get the one that suits their purposes...such as the one with the lowest evidence of harmful side effects. There is going to be a natural statistical variability in the testing procedure, even if the same parameters are used each time. So if they have their researchers run 10 tests and pick out the best one, and demand that the lab destroy the other test results and never discuss them with outsiders, they have corrupted the scientific process. Now which side of the climate debate do you think is more likely to introduce bogus research: the institutionally funded consensus on climate change, or the oil and defense contractor-backed scientists who work for UAH?
eace
