The Unreliability of Scientific Studies

Jonah Lehrer has an important piece in the New Yorker on the "decline effect" -- the fact that over time attempts to replicate the results of many well-established scientific studies increasingly fail. It is important to note that these studies have been thoroughly reviewed, were published in top journals, and were successfully replicated shortly after the time of their publication. Many of them have made their way into textbooks, and some are considered classics of their field. Yet, they have all been falsified in subsequent trials. This is a serious problem for science because it calls into question its fundamental tenets. How can an experimental result can be confirmed time and again, but later consistently falsified? In part, the answer would seem to be that science is not, and can never be, a completely objective undertaking. Subjectivity and bias enter into even the most rigorously designed studies.

But the importance of the decline effect is greater than a mere demonstration of scientific subjectivity. Lehrer writes:

[T]he decline effect is... troubling. Not because it reveals the human fallibility of science, in which data are tweaked and beliefs shape perceptions. (Such shortcomings aren’t surprising, at least for scientists.) And not because it reveals that many of our most exciting theories are fleeting fads and will soon be rejected. (That idea has been around since Thomas Kuhn.) The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.

Indeed! 

Read the whole article here.

The Continuing Collapse of Scientific Authority -- Marc Hauser

One of the most important figures in the study of cognition has been Harvard professor Marc Hauser. His work on evolutionary biology and the biological basis for morality has been praised by such luminaries as Peter Singer and Noam Chomsky. He has published more than 200 papers and several books. He is, or rather was, a heavyweight.

Writing in the Nation Charles Gross details Hauser's fall from grace. The results of a government investigation into his work have not yet been revealed, but a Harvard faculty investigation has found him guilty of eight counts of "scientific misconduct". Earlier this year he was banned from teaching, and subsequently resigned his professorship at Harvard.

What is the meaning of all this? Charles Gross explains:

Science is driven by two powerful motivations—to discover the “truth,” while acknowledging how fleeting it can be, and to achieve recognition through publication in prominent journals, through grant support to continue and expand research, and through promotion, prizes and memberships in prestigious scientific societies. The search for scientific truth may be seriously derailed by the desire for recognition, which may result in scientific misconduct.

Certainly the reasons for error go beyond the "desire for recognition" -- we might note ideological predispositions, confirmation bias, monetary considerations, and a host of other factors -- but far more important than understanding why some scientists falsify and misattribute data is the extent to which systematic fraud has permeated the scientific community from its ancient origins. Gross writes:

Accusations of scientific misconduct, sometimes well supported, pepper the history of science from the Greek natural philosophers onward. Ptolemy of Alexandria (90–168), the greatest astronomer of antiquity, has been accused of using without attribution observations of stars made by his predecessor Hipparchus of Rhodes (162–127 BCE), who himself had used much earlier Babylonian observations as if they were his own. Isaac Newton used “fudge factors” to better fit data to his theories. In his studies of hereditary characteristics, Gregor Mendel reported near perfect ratios, and therefore statistically very unlikely ratios, from his pea-plant crossings. When Mendel crossed hybrid plants, he predicted and found that exactly one-third were pure dominants and two-thirds were hybrids. The high unlikelihood of getting exact 1:3 ratios was first pointed out in 1911 by R.A. Fisher, the founder of modern statistics and a founder of population genetics, when he was an undergraduate at Cambridge University. Though Charles Darwin has been cleared of accusations of nicking the idea of natural selection from Alfred Russel Wallace, he seems to have only reluctantly credited some of his predecessors.

Wow! Ptolemy, Newton, Mendel, Darwin... members of the pantheon all. The list underscores just how powerful and ubiquitous are the temptations to which even the greatest scientific minds are susceptible. But certainly, you would think, the modern scientific community, with its elaborate professional standards, peer review, and international associations, would be relatively immune to such error. But, you would be wrong.

In the past few decades there have been a number of studies asking scientists at every level of research in a variety of fields, and under the cover of anonymity, whether they had engaged in fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, or had direct evidence of such misconduct by others. Although the results were variable and involved different survey response rates and methodologies, the overall picture is disturbing.

In a large and pioneering survey of science graduate students and faculty at ninety-nine universities, the historian of biology and ethicist Judith Swazey and her colleagues found that “44 percent of students and 50 percent of faculty” had knowledge of two or more types of misconduct, broadly defined; about 7 percent had “observed” or had “direct knowledge” of faculty falsifying data. In a survey of its members, the International Society of Clinical Biostatistics found that 51 percent of respondents knew of at least one fraudulent project in the previous ten years. Of 549 biomedical trainees at the University of California, San Diego, 10 percent said they had “firsthand knowledge of scientists’ intentionally altering or fabricating data for the purpose of publication.” In a similar survey, 8 percent of biological and medical postdoctoral fellows at the University of California, San Francisco, said they had observed scientists altering data for publication. The American Association for the Advancement of Science surveyed a random sample of its members, and 27 percent of the respondents believed they had encountered or witnessed fabricated, falsified or plagiarized research over the previous ten years, with an average of 2.5 examples. A study by the director of intramural research at the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the Department of Health and Human Services found that of 2,212 researchers receiving NIH grants, 201 reported instances of likely federally defined misconduct over a three-year period, of which 60 percent were fabrication or falsification and 36 percent plagiarism. Noting that in 2007 155,000 personnel received research support from the NIH, the authors suggest that under the most conservative assumptions, a minimum of 2,325 possible acts of research misconduct occur each year. Finally, in a meta-analysis of eighteen studies, 2 percent of scientists admitted to fabricating or falsifying data and more than 14 percent had observed other scientists doing the same.

Scientists guilty of misconduct are found in every field, at every kind of research institution and with a variety of social and educational backgrounds. 

So we are not dealing merely with a few "bad apples" -- marginal figures whose misconduct doesn't compromise the integrity of the scientific community in general. This is systematic and pervasive fraud and it brings into question the scientific enterprise in all its aspects. 

Keep this in mind the next time you hear about questionable practices among climate researchers, nutritionists, or medical studies. These fields, because of the immense amounts of money involved, have been particularly susceptible to fraud. And, most importantly, remember this when you hear a politician or policy expert say that they "trust the science". All too often, especially in the areas most closely related to public policy, "science" is not to be trusted. 

Read Gross' article here.

The Continuing Collapse of Scientific Authority -- Fraud at Harvard

Even in the most illustrious institutions, the quest for fame and fortune corrupts scientific inquiry.

Harvard's media-friendly evolutionary psychologist Marc Hauser, famous for his 2006 book Moral Minds, is under investigation for misrepresenting research on morality in primates. Students asked Harvard officials to raid Hauser's lab three years ago; they didn't like what they found.


Like his colleague Steven Pinker, Hauser believes that primates (including humans) possess psychological traits - like morality - which go back quite far in our evolution. In other words, humans possess an innate sense of right and wrong that they share with their evolutionary cousins, the monkeys and apes. He's written extensively about the moral and cognitive traits of tamarin monkeys, as well as human babies. But, according to the New York Times' Nicolas Wade, who has been following this unfolding academic melodrama, Hauser's students got so fed up with wrongdoings in his lab that they reported him to Harvard authorities three years ago. They claimed he was misrepresenting his research, an accusation which was mirrored by other colleagues.

Read it here. Original NYT report here.

So the scientist wanted to become a media star and in the process of doing so sold his integrity and threatens that of the entire field. And how did Harvard react to the problem? The Times quotes a colleague:

“The people who really know what’s happened are students, current and former,” said a scientist who asked to remain anonymous because of Dr. Hauser’s continuing power in the field. “They are very unhappy about how Harvard has handled this, and they feel things are being swept under the rug.”

Indeed!

The Continuing Collapse of Scientific Authority -- Global Average Temperature

I've been saying this for a long time -- there is no such thing as a global average temperature. What you get is an average for the points and times measured and depending on what you choose to measure and when and at what altitude you can get radically different results. Finally, credentialed "scientists" make this obvious point as well as several others I had not considered.

From Science Daily:

Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.

.....

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.

If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

....

A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.

Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.

Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)

The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.

Read the whole thing here.

The Continuing Collapse of Scientific Authority -- Warming Hysteria Is a Fraud

Here's another heavyweight climatologist weighing in against the Gore hysterics. He has some very interesting things to say about supposedly objective scientific authority. A few excerpts:

Hans von Storch is one of Germany's leading researchers on climate change. DER SPIEGEL spoke with him about why fears of global warming are exaggerated and and the doom-mongering tendencies of German scientists. .... SPIEGEL: Some climate protection groups and politicians are calling on Germans to spend their summer vacations in their own country in the future.

Storch: That's just another one of those typically German attempts to save the world with symbolic acts. It makes us feel like better people and morally superior to everyone else.

....

SPIEGEL: But many believe that the end of the world is upon us. Is the climate debate gradually becoming too hysterical?

Storch: Indeed. The fear of climatic catastrophes is an ancient one and not unlike our fear of strangers. In the past, people believed that the climate almost always changes for the worse, and only rarely for the better -- God's punishment for sinful behavior. And nowadays it's those hedonistic wastrels who pollute the air so that they can look at some pretty fish in the South Seas. It would be better if we only ever rode bikes. Oh, there's always someone wagging a finger in disapproval.

....

Storch: Detailed forecasts are not possible, because we don't know how emissions will in fact develop. We climate researchers can only offer possible scenarios. In other words, things could end up being completely different. But there are undoubtedly parts of the world that will benefit on balance from climate change. Those areas tend to be in the north, where it has been cold and uncomfortable in the past. But it's considered practically heretical to even raise such issues.

....

SPIEGEL: And what about the monster storms that will supposedly be rushing in our direction in a greenhouse climate?

Storch: A false alarm, so far, even though it's become warmer by almost one degree since the beginning of industrialization. According to the computer models, we do expect high winds in northern Germany to increase by one percent per decade. But this is such a weak phenomenon that we won't even notice it at first.

SPIEGEL: And the thousands of heat-related deaths the Kiel Institute for World Economics predicted in a recent study? Storch: Such claims are completely idiotic and dubious.

....

SPIEGEL: Aren't climate researchers helping fuel a state of panic with their generally bleak warnings?

Storch: Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too much as priests whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people. This is another legacy of the 1968 generation, which I happen to belong to myself. In fact, it would be better if we just presented the facts and scenarios dispassionately -- and then society can decide for itself what it wants to do to influence climate change.

Read the whole thing here.

This is what happens when you mix science and politics -- you corrupt both. As I have said many times, scientific authority is not objective and, while it should be heeded, it's recommendations should be balanced against other concerns, political, economic, even moral.

Thinking Like Canute

From my LA correspondent comes a link to yet another critique of the global warming hysteria.

Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London, notes several salient points:

1) The problem of measurement:

Measurement of temperatures is a complex problem that can lead to erroneous conclusions. For instance:

[C]omparing modern temperature measurements with older measurements can be misleading. Measuring stations where temperatures have been recorded over many years may no longer have the same local environment, due to increased urbanisation and the urban 'heat-island' effect...

Moreover:

[M]odern thermistor- and thyristor- based instruments react very quickly, and are likely to record more extreme transitory temperature highs and lows than the older mercury-in-glass thermometers. So current temperature measurements are probably exaggerated relative to the older measurements....

2) The problem of complexity:

Temperature trends show no clear pattern over time or space. There are periods of warming and of cooling on different continents that don't coalesce into a coherent trend. The most that can be said is:

Overall, temperatures have risen by a mere 0.6 degrees C over the past 150 years - which is unexceptional given that we are moving away from a Little Ice Age.

Episodes of extreme weather tell us next to nothing about global warming.

For the past 15 years, green pressure groups with vested interests have worked hard to persuade us that all such climatic phenomena are evidence of human-induced warming. But we must be wary of trying to link naturally varying weather events like fires and floods to simplistic ideas like 'global warming'. As the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) pointed out earlier in August, 'We need more than just one or two events'.... After all, it remains impossible to forecast weather more than 10 days in advance!

And "climate change" is not the same as "global warming."

Climate change is a truism; it happens all the time. It would be extraordinary if climate were not changing. 'Global warming', by contrast, is a 1990s apocalyptic construct that climate change is primarily driven by human emissions of so-called 'greenhouse gases', like carbon dioxide and methane, and that these will cause a massive rise in temperature....

So what we have is a large, dynamic, complex set of systems that are always in flux, the interactions of which are only partially understood.

And even if we did discern a clear pattern in all of this we are incompetent to manage a system so large and complex as climate.

[C]limate, and our weather, is governed by thousands of interacting factors, from erupting volcanoes to the cycles of the sun. Sorting these out, and predicting what might ultimately happen, is like trying to control a million drunks on a Saturday evening, all chaos and non-linear activity.

3) Attempts to control climate change are futile and a waste of valuable resources. Here I quote at length because his argument is so damn powerful.

[T]he very concept of a 'sustainable' climate does not make sense. Even if we junked every car, closed down every factory, and shut down every power station, climate would still change....

The sooner we admit that we have no predictable control over climate, the better. This is what is wrong with the ill-fated Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Not only are the national targets it set for cutting 'greenhouse gas' emissions impossible in the face of economic growth, particularly in the developing world like China and India - they would not work in pure climate terms. Fiddling at the edges of this mighty Wurlitzer of a system will accomplish nothing and may make things worse.

But the real human danger of Kyoto is that aid finance is being deflected from much more practical ways of improving environmental performance and welfare, especially in developing countries. While billions are being squandered on a quixotic climatic adventure, millions die for want of clean water, sufficient food, basic medicines and a reliable modern energy supply.

The way to cope with climate extremes, hot or cold, real or imaginary, is to maintain strong flexible economies that can adapt to change....

Read the whole thing here.

And that last is the great tragedy of modern environmentalism. Transhumanist world savers are quite willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of men, women, and children in order to pursue the fantasy of "sustainable" climate. The global warming activists are not benefactors of humanity, they are profoundly anti-humanist; dangerous zealots and fools who must be opposed and fought at every turn.

The Collapse of the Environmental "Consensus"

From the NYT [!!!]:

[P]art of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Wow! And in the New York Times too!!

There's more:

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists....

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration.
....

And there's more:

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

....

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

Now, tell me again about that "scientific consensus." If even so biased a source as the New York Times is beginning to realize that Al Gore is so full of something that he is emitting noxious fumes, the party is over. This is what you get when you mix science and politics -- bad science, and even worse politics.

Read the article here.