Inspector General Investigated For Muzzling Inconvenient Science

Layzej writes "Federal biologist Charles Monnett was placed on administrative leave July 18 pending final results of an inspector general's investigation into integrity issues. The investigation originally focused on a 2006 note published in Polar Biology based on a unique observation of four dead polar bears. The investigators acknowledged that they had no formal training in science, but later demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of science, the peer review process, and at times basic math with questions like 'seven of what number is 11 percent?' They also expressed concern over the fact that the note was reviewed by Monnett's wife prior to submitting the paper for peer review. When nothing turned up, the investigation turned towards Monnett's role in administering research contracts. But documents released by PEER, a watchdog and whistle-blower protection group, suggest even that investigation is off base. Monnett has since been reinstated, albeit in a different position. Now the IG handling of this case is itself under investigation following a PEER complaint that the IG is violating new Interior Department scientific integrity rules."

Comments

Re:The Oil Corps

[somersault]

Got to love this quote from your NYTimes article..

“When you come to work for the federal government, the American people expect the best of you,”

Baahahahahaha.. seriously? When I think of government workers, I think of depressed cubicle dwellers, or corrupt politicians..

Re:why is science so mistrusted?

[phantomfive]

It's because scientists spent the last 5 centuries trying to DESTROY trust in institutions, including academic institutions. Furthermore, it continues to teach that trust in institutions is a bad thing, and that what matters is the evidence. Thus scientists have no charismatic leaders (do you count Al Gore?). What they do is correct.

If you want to correct people on global warming, then show them the evidence. I've never found anyone who I couldn't convince that adding CO2 has a positive radiative forcing, because there is tons of evidence for that. Where you run into trouble is when you start saying ".....therefore, if we don't replace all our coal power plants right now, millions of people will die." There just isn't the evidence to support that.

We can apply the same principle to evolution. It's rare to find someone who won't agree with natural selection when it is carefully explained (those people do exist, but they are rare examples of idiots). When you carefully explain the evidence for an old earth, you can usually get most people around to believing that as well (once again, that has been my experience). However, if you try to further draw the conclusion, "......therefore, god doesn't exist." People are going to start ignoring you, because evolution arguments don't prove that.