EPA Proposes Limits To Science Used In Rulemaking (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule on Tuesday that would limit the kinds of scientific research it can use in crafting regulations, an apparent concession to big business that has long requested such restrictions. Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data. The measure was billed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt as a way to boost transparency for the benefit of the industries his agency regulates. But scientists and former EPA officials worry it will hamstring the agency's ability to protect public health by putting key data off limits.

The EPA has for decades relied on scientific research that is rooted in confidential medical and industry data as a basis for its air, water and chemicals rules. While it publishes enormous amounts of research and data to the public, the confidential material is held back. Business interests have argued the practice is tantamount to writing laws behind closed doors and unfairly prevents them from vetting the research underpinning the EPA's often costly regulatory requirements. They argue that if the data cannot be published, the rules should not be adopted. But ex-EPA officials say the practice is vital.

Comments

Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[aepervius]

I mean I usually suspect the industry to want to hamstring the EPA, after all it forces them to take into account externalities, which they could otherwise ignore and cut corner. But what sort of research would be private and have an impact ? Before deciding either way I would need example. I am no friend of "trust us we were told that XYZ is bad for you" (The only counter example I can think of is military research, but I guess that would be exempt).

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Medical research.

The participants in a medical study generally are protected from having their medical histories exposed to the world.

I suppose one could argue that knowing someone is 37, a non-smoker, takes over-the-counter asprin, and has high-blood pressure might not be enough to expose who they are. But in more detailed tests knowing someone had cancer in a timeframe or making their DNA public definitely could be invasive.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what sort of research would be private and have an impact ?

Here's some of what the Union for Concerned Scientists had to say about attempted GOP legislation that tried to do the same thing:

Agencies such as the EPA don’t make all this information publicly available for a number of very good reasons. Protecting individuals’ privacy is prime among them. For example, we’re all aware of the laws that protect the privacy of our medical records. The Secret Science bill appears to require the EPA to release such confidential personal health information about the participants in scientific studies if it wants to use health studies to make regulatory decisions—a direct violation of health privacy law. The bill also fails to protect intellectual property rights, another reason data often cannot be publicly released.

Further, the bill would not compel companies and others to make their relevant data publicly available to the agency.

The upshot is, if this bill became law, the EPA would not be able to use public health data protected by confidentiality agreements to enact science-based regulations. The result? The EPA would not be able to carry out its mission of protecting public health and the environment.

What’s Wrong with Expecting the EPA to Make All of Its Data Available—Isn’t Complete Transparency a Good Thing?

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excerpt from a letter signed by 1000 scientists urging Pruitt not to do this:

Proponents for these radical restrictions purport to raise two sets of concerns: reproducibility and
transparency. In reality, these are phony issues that weaponize ‘transparency’ to facilitate political
interference in science-based decisionmaking, rather than genuinely address either. The result will be
policies and practices that will ignore significant risks to the health of every American.

First, many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and
unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants or recreating one-time events
(such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill).

Second, there are multiple valid reasons why requiring the release of all data does not improve scientific
integrity and could actually compromise research, including intellectual property, proprietary, and
privacy concerns. Further, EPA has historically been transparent in demonstrating the scientific basis of
its decisions, so the public can hold the agency accountable to establish evidence-based safeguards; any
changes should be made with the full consultation with and support of the scientific community.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[omnichad]

But what sort of research would be private and have an impact ?

Cancer clusters vs. HIPAA.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Not everything is about your politics.

If a construction crew drops a girder, what happens if it hits a Trump voter? Is this any different from what happens if it hits a Clinton voter instead?

I expect snark in response, of course, since you're more interested in looking clever than you are in finding truth.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Zontar The Mindless]

They're compensated.

Bull-hockey. Having one's entire life laid bare is hardly compensation for a free home page.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Calydor]

The general population disagrees or Facebook wouldn't be as successful as they are.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Humbubba]

A statement is not scientific if it can't conceivably be proven wrong empirically. Testability is why I trust science to be the basis for EPA regulations and environmental laws.

But instead of relying on science, our political system lets companies write the laws and regulations that govern them. As a result, we get abominations like polluted water in Flint MI, West Virginia, and North Carolina.

Before releasing something into the water supply, samples should be tested for contaminants. And if those samples don't make the grade, those responsible need to be held accountable. Making discharge safe typically involves diluting it to approved contaminant levels before releasing it into the water supply. Simple, really. There are labs that can and do test discharge samples for a plethora of contaminants, acidity, color, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, etc. But they don't test for everything that might be dangerous - prescription drugs for example. These sort of things need to be put right before they are put in our water. But it won't happen if science doesn't make the rules and regulators don't enforce those rules.

Because science and technology can verifiably be used to clean up the environment, whereas politics demonstratively won't, I propose replacing Scott Pruitt with AI. If AI is good enough for the CIA, it's gotta be better for the environment than a corrupt political lackey.

--

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/what-lies-upstream/

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[tomhath]

if this bill became law, the EPA would not be able to use public health data protected by confidentiality agreements

Almost all public health data can be used once it's de-identified. There will be some examples where an unusual combination of timing and medical conditions would mean it has to be kept confidential, but that's the exception and the number of cases will be small.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Proponents for these radical restrictions purport to raise two sets of concerns: reproducibility and
transparency. In reality, these are phony issues that weaponize ‘transparency’ to facilitate political
interference in science-based decisionmaking, rather than genuinely address either.

It is the same as pretty much everything else with them.

1. Establish the desired outcome. Eliminate abortions, get more republicans elected, more tax cuts for high earners, etc.
2. Determine what paths get that outcome ignoring ethics entirely or to a great degree.
3. If necessary come up with "reasons" why you had to take those actions.
4. Take those actions.

With abortions, you have such things as requiring a 6 foot wide hallway. There have been no rational basis for why that is required beyond they wanted to shutdown more abortion clinics, but the stated reason was for the health of the people involved. In other words, they lied.

In voting, you have protecting against fake voting as the stated reason. In practice their voting role purges, voter id requirements, etc, etc raise barriers to voting that tend to favour their side. In short, they lied again.

With this you have the stated reason of protecting us from non verified info and such, but the outcome of gutting more of the EPA and making the planet dirtier. In short, they lied again.

They elected someone known for lying and have established a pattern of lying continuously to get their way. None of this is new..

Hell Trump just called the leader of North Korea "Very Honourable."

Truth means nothing to these people. Only outcomes matter. It is all a means to the end.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[kenh]

You're talking about HIPPA regulations - have you ever read the HIPPA regulations? Ever worked in a HIPPA regulated field?

HIPPA regulations require that patient identity be protected - I used to work in the clinical drug trial industry and we used six-digit patient numbers and three letter initials to identify patients in our studies, and the client research companies protected the key that mapped the six-digit IDs and initials to the actual consent forms and other personally-identifiable documents.

Take your example:

someone is 37, a non-smoker, takes over-the-counter asprin, and has high-blood pressure

None of that information tells you who the patient is, it does not reveal their identity... Adding that the same person "had cancer in a time frame" does not revel their identity - to use that information to arrive at an identity would require you to already know the person and know they had cancer "in a certain time period" before you could identify who the patient is - the only problem is you haven't revealed anything, you already knew the identity of the patient that had cancer.
 

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "Proponents for these radical restrictions purport to raise two sets of concerns: reproducibility and transparency. In reality, these are phony issues that weaponize ‘transparency’ to facilitate political interference in science-based decisionmaking, rather than genuinely address either."

Centralized "big science" communities more likely generate non-replicable results

"Abstract: Growing concern that most published results, including those widely agreed upon, may be false are rarely examined against rapidly expanding research production. Replications have only occurred on small scales due to prohibitive expense and limited professional incentive. We introduce a novel, high-throughput replication strategy aligning 51,292 published claims about drug-gene interactions with high-throughput experiments performed through the NIH LINCS L1000 program. We show (1) that unique claims replicate 19% more frequently than at random, while those widely agreed upon replicate 45% more frequently, manifesting collective correction mechanisms in science; but (2) centralized scientific communities perpetuate claims that are less likely to replicate even if widely agreed upon, demonstrating how centralized, overlapping collaborations weaken collective understanding. Decentralized research communities involve more independent teams and use more diverse methodologies, generating the most robust, replicable results. Our findings highlight the importance of science policies that foster decentralized collaboration to promote robust scientific advance."

Introduction:

Concern over reliability (1) and reproducibility (2, 3) in science calls into question the cumulative process of building on prior results published by others. In a publication environment that rewards novel findings over verifications (4, 5), scientists remain uncertain about the published claims they assemble into new research designs and discoveries. In this paper, we demonstrate a claim replication strategy that repurposes high-throughput experiments to evaluate the replication likelihood for tens of thousands of scientific claims curated from a wide range of research articles.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Rhipf]

But it that identity is kept confidential at all the study couldn't be used by the EPA if this proposed rule is passed.

the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data

Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawndo?

[Jeremi]

Because this is how you end up watering your crops with Brawndo.

Fracking recipes, too?

[ediron2]

Is this end-to-unattributed data going to have a fat, juicy exception written for fracking compounds? Asking for my grandkids.

Scott Pruitt just announced more transparency

[rsilvergun]

in his administration. No joke, he didn't invite the press...

Empirical Analysis

[KidSock]

Sounds like they need to further develop their hypothesis, conduct trials to collect data, establish a control group, analyze the data and present their findings for peer review to determine precisely how much Science should be permitted at the EPA.

There's actually another, unintended effect.

[hey!]

The intent may be to hobble the use of public health data, but it will may also force pesticide companies to publish trade secrets in order to have their products registered for legal use. At present this data is treated as confidential by the EPA.

This will not only affect new pesticides, it could also affect already registered pesticides, even if you grandfathered in the original registration. That's because a new registration number needs to be issued whenever the manufacturer changes any of the inert ingredients in the formulation, or even makes changes to the the production processes.

Re:There's actually another, unintended effect.

[whoever57]

but it will may also force pesticide companies to publish trade secrets in order to have their products registered for legal use. At present this data is treated as confidential by the EPA.

Very funny!

No. Your prediction is wrong. Approvals for pesticides are not "rulemaking".

Here is a hint: if you think that a change that the administration is making isn't intended to benefit large companies, you are almost certainly wrong.

Re:Real Science is Reproducible

[hey!]

Not disclosing public health data does not make a result non-reproducible. It just makes it less convenient to reproduce.

In your conception of "reproducible", gravity wave detection is not science, because you can't reproduce the detection of any specific event.

+5 good explanation

[aepervius]

I was thinking of the result, but if the bill also require patient confidentiality to be broken then it is definitively intentional shenanigan from the industry parts. The points taken up by the UCS are very valid.

Re:+5 good explanation

[Derekloffin]

It's not necessarily shenanigan's even then, just a conflict of rules and goals, a very common thing in governing. It is actually quite rare when pushing one principle does not force compromises in others. Something always has to give. Here the conflict seems to be between making the rule making process transparent verses the privacy of the individuals in the studies. Both a things to strive for, but they are directly at odds here.

Re:+5 good explanation

[fish_in_the_c]

So right and that is something just as much on the left as on the right. However, that doesn't mean any given policy when evaluated on it's own merits should be opposed simply because it comes from the side of the isle you don't stand on. To me if your data-sets aren't available for peer review, then basically no on can tell if you actually did science or just cooked the books and applied a convenient method. I don't see where 'confidentiality' should be a problem. It is easy enough to clean data and divorce it from specific individuals. The point is the data you claim to be using and the methods you claim to apply should be freely available for scrutiny by others. Including, not being combined by 'proprietary' processes that no one else can attempt to reproduce, or you aren't actually doing science. Nothing can be considered proved 'scientifically' without significant predictability. If you are choosing between doing science and making a profit. Your choice. You can't pervert the scientific method simply because it is convenient without expect to equally pervert the scientific credibility of your conclusions. Which is basically what this policy is attempting to address.

Skeptical Science

[AlanObject]

I am skeptical of any Trump associate (or even any guy Trump likes) proclaiming they are trying to make a government agency more transparent. Remember this is the guy who insisted on a bug sweep of his government office and also installed an expensive privacy phone booth, and insists on a security detail greater than that of most 3rd world dictators. He gets favors like cheap rent from industry lobbyists and then tries to lie about it.

And, for good measure, freely uses taxpayer money for luxury travel so lavish that even Trump has to notice.

So spare me protestations that this member of the Trump clown show is going to make anything better at the EPA for anyone except his industry executive friends and that any criticism is just anti-Trump bias. For someone to have faith in him doing the right thing they would have to be delusional, ignorant, partisan or any combination.

Re:Skeptical Science

[AlanObject]

Why single out Trump, you really think there is a single politician left who isn't just interested in lining his own pockets and would harvest and sell your organs if he thought he'd get away with it?

#1: The article was about a a Trump appointee and crony.

#2: There are many politicians and even more career bureaucrats who are community minded, idealistic, and work hard from the common good. I am not going to name names here because I don't want to get into a shitstorm of denials and misinformation.

#3: I will, however, point out that every time I see a statement like this, I remember there is one woman who has been investigated pretty much constantly for over a quarter of a century by the most nasty and mean legislators and political operatives using over $100M of taxpayer money to do so. A media network including Fox News, all right wing radio, and several print publications are fully dedicated to to defaming her. There has been no such thing as a crackpot theory or accusation that was too extreme to investigate. After all this she has not been indicted or convicted of one single crime.

I’m with the Evil Death Industries on this o

[Applehu Akbar]

Environmental regulations should be strictly based on science, but it should be on published research with publicly available, peer reviewable data.

Reproducibility?

[mveloso]

Without data and methods, the study can't be reproduced, so the conclusions can't be challenged.

That's not science.

Anonymize the data. That's what everyone else does. Or compel data from the entities in question. Compelling data is only a rule change away.

Re:Reproducibility?

[omnichad]

Anonymize the data. That's what everyone else does.

That's specifically what this rule is proposed to prevent. That constitutes the confidential data that is not being disclosed, and thereby the entire research is excluded from EPA consideration. And due to HIPAA and the unlikelihood that patients will all sign a release for their medical information, that's exactly what would happen.

Re:Reproducibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what the rule says. It bans research which is underpinned by confidential data. Now, nobody ever releases _all_ data regarding a research, any research. The question is whether _relevant_ data is held back. We don't need to know personal identification for a medical research to have validity (see: current standards in medical research), ergo this data is not underpinning an anonymized research and it can be consulted under the new rule while being HIPAA compatible.

Re:I'd prefer limiting laws to scientific ones.

[hey!]

"Solid research" means meeting the normal standards for research in that field.

I've actually worked with public health data, and the standard for exchanging data is to aggregate that data in such a way that personally identifiable information is not recoverable. For example when you report an HIV case, you know the person lives at 123 Maple Street, but you instead report it as occurring within a geographic area that contains enough people that it's not feasible to work out who that person is, even if you combine it with other data.

That's the usual standard. If you ask for surveillance data, you get sanitized data, never raw data. It may limit the kinds of conclusions you draw, but it doesn't undermine the validity of the conclusion you *do* draw.

Re:I’m with the Evil Death Industries on thi

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine. Please release the results of your latest colonoscopy to the public domain so we can use it to help formulate public policy.

Re:Ummm... did the Trump administration just do go

[omnichad]

But requiring all the science data to be available is a GOOD thing.

Unless the science data can't be made available, thereby invalidating all research that involves medical side effects. This is just a way to prevent science from being used because it proves too much.

Pot, Kettle, Bang

[Anonymous Coward]

"weaponize transparency". Where on Earth do you shills^Wpeople think this shit up. Or is truth no longer acceptable when it doesn't fit your narrative?

Hello anonymous! By your own logic, we should not take into account your criticisms because you have not been fully transparent yourself.

Re:Ask yourself

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's OK, folks--Kohath's merely asking a question.

Re:I’m with the Evil Death Industries on thi

[bankman]

Environmental regulations should be strictly based on science, but it should be on published research with publicly available, peer reviewable data.

Absolutely! I would in fact propose a law that requires any company that challenges EPA regulation based on this argument to open all their own books and research in the interest of transparency.
 

What else do you expect from the...

[Anonymous Coward]

Environmental Pollution Agency?

Re: Yes!

[Reverend Green]

Secret laws, secret courts, tyranny.

Secret data, secret science, charlatanism.

Re: I’m with the Evil Death Industries on th

[Reverend Green]

Absolutely! Partisan humbug and rancor aside, transparency is a good thing. If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's NOT science.

the Enterprise Protection Agency ?

[bill.pev]

What's worse for human beings.. No Regulation -OR- Biased crappy enforcement of industry-friendly regulations that institutionalize the ability to rape the environment without regards to its effect on people? What Protection does the EPA actually provide? None to people.

Re: I'd prefer limiting laws to scientific ones.

[mapkinase]

I worked with such sanitized data. Geography is reduced to a state and time reduced to a year. That was definitely not enough to do science.

Re:US on their way back

[DNS-and-BIND]

Donald Trump is such a terrifying fascist dictator that literally nobody fears speaking about him on any platform.

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM-BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State.

Now of all the players in American politics today, which group does this best describe?

Re:US on their way back

[Opportunist]

The difference is that by now our leaders found out that it means jack shit if people talk. If anything, it keeps them from revolting because they think they still have freedom.

In other words...

[kenh]

This change will require environmental regulation decisions to be based on publicly-available data, rather than secret datasets - and the problem is what, exactly? Critics of this rule change apparently are forcing themselves to pretend medical data can't be annonimized and made public...

What is fascinating is that the critics are ignoring how this regulation would protect their interests of a business-favoring administration tried to ram thru a regulation rolling back a clean water regulation ("I have secret medical data that shows humans have an incredible tolerance for less in their drinking water, we we are rolling back safe water regulations").

And the problem is...

[kenh]

Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data.

So the EPA proposes that the science used to determine public policy and environmental regulations be held to the same rigorous standard as your average sixth-grade science fair submission, and critics attack the proposal because... decisions based on secret data is the only way to protect the environment?

Re:And the problem is...

[JoshuaZ]

Confidential medical data is a standard thing. Under this rule, all sorts of data that would be normally confidential (especially identifying information of patients or subjects in studies) would need to be public for it to be used. This cannot for a whole host of reasons occur.

Re: I'd prefer limiting laws to scientific ones.

[aquacrayfish]

I'm pretty sure a patient's privacy is more important than a third party wanting their information for a study or experiment. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Understanding HIPPA regulations

[kenh]

The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes the conditions under which protected health information may be used or disclosed by covered entities for research purposes. Research is defined in the Privacy Rule as, “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” See 45 CFR 164.501. A covered entity may always use or disclose for research purposes health information which has been de-identified (in accordance with 45 CFR 164.502(d), and 164.514(a)-(c) of the Rule)

Source: Health Information Privacy

Ignorance of the HIPPA regulations is fueling much of the backlash this proposed federal regulation change is attracting.

Once the data is "de-identified" it can be published, and removing identifying elements is trivial.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

If the basis of your complaint about this rule change is "Pruitt is a poopy face!"

Its not. Pay attention. Pruitt isn't trying to increase transparency, he's using it as a pretext to reduce the application of science in government policy making. That's why he's demanding the medical data be de-anonymized in order to use it for policy purposes. He knows that would be illegal and thus will get all the science based on that medical data excluded.

Re:Don't Get Played

[paradigmsareconstruc]

When one considers that science owes its success to this concept of reproducibility, it is alarming that anybody would consider reproducibility to be some sort of a partisan issue.

Science is Not What You Think: How It Has Changed, Why We Can't Trust It, How It Can Be Fixed
Henry H. Bauer

Why Has Science Been Successful?

"What explains the enormous successes of science?

... All this knowledge and understanding came from studying phenomena that are regular, where observations can be repeated, and where the basic bits of matter involved are essentially identical and with inherent properties that do not change over time. Astronomy was able to gain understanding that could be expressed mathematically, quantitatively, because heavenly movements repeat themselves with great regularity. Physics and chemistry yielded general laws because atoms and molecules of a particular species (elements or compounds) are all identical within their given species: all atoms of carbon react in the same way, all molecules of water are the same, all electrons are identical, as are all protons and neutrons and other fundamental particles. Such regular behavior, together with being able to group objects into categories within which all the individual objects are identical, is what makes it possible to discover general laws of nature and universal constants. Laws and constants can only exist when phenomena are regular and occur invariably in the same manner ...

Popular views about science as a whole were derived largely from the stunning successes of the natural sciences, without explicit recognition that those successes flowed from the study of relatively simple systems of inanimate matter composed of collections of individual bits."

This is truthfully an insanely simple issue: if climate change advocates are suggesting that we need to make fundamental changes to our system of government and economy to save the planet, then the data must be made publicly available.

Re:Don't Get Played

[paradigmsareconstruc]

The pattern is pretty clear: Actual attempts to reproduce research tend to produce shockingly low reproducibility rates. For those who have been paying attention to the situation, this is not actually news. It seems to only be news for those who refuse to track these types of problems.

Nature article from May 2016

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research ...

Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology and cancer biology, found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence.

Re:Don't Get Played

[paradigmsareconstruc]

The threat from within
February 21, 2017

Former Provost John Etchemendy, in a recent speech before the Stanford Board of Trustees, outlined challenges higher education is facing in the coming years. Following is an excerpt from that talk.

"Over the years, I have watched a growing intolerance at universities in this country – not intolerance along racial or ethnic or gender lines – there, we have made laudable progress. Rather, a kind of intellectual intolerance, a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for. It manifests itself in many ways: in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands. We decry certain news outlets as echo chambers, while we fail to notice the echo chamber we've built around ourselves.

This results in a kind of intellectual blindness that will, in the long run, be more damaging to universities than cuts in federal funding or ill-conceived constraints on immigration. It will be more damaging because we won't even see it: We will write off those with opposing views as evil or ignorant or stupid, rather than as interlocutors worthy of consideration. We succumb to the all-purpose ad hominem because it is easier and more comforting than rational argument. But when we do, we abandon what is great about this institution we serve. It will not be easy to resist this current. As an institution, we are continually pressed by faculty and students to take political stands, and any failure to do so is perceived as a lack of courage. But at universities today, the easiest thing to do is to succumb to that pressure. What requires real courage is to resist it. Yet when those making the demands can only imagine ignorance and stupidity on the other side, any resistance will be similarly impugned.

The university is not a megaphone to amplify this or that political view, and when it does it violates a core mission. Universities must remain open forums for contentious debate, and they cannot do so while officially espousing one side of that debate. But we must do more. We need to encourage real diversity of thought in the professoriate, and that will be even harder to achieve. It is hard for anyone to acknowledge high-quality work when that work is at odds, perhaps opposed, to one's own deeply held beliefs. But we all need worthy opponents to challenge us in our search for truth. It is absolutely essential to the quality of our enterprise.

I fear that the next few years will be difficult to navigate. We need to resist the external threats to our mission, but in this, we have many friends outside the university willing and able to help. But to stem or dial back our academic parochialism, we are pretty much on our own. The first step is to remind our students and colleagues that those who hold views contrary to one’s own are rarely evil or stupid, and may know or understand things that we do not. It is only when we start with this assumption that rational discourse can begin, and that the winds of freedom can blow."

Re:Don't Get Played

[paradigmsareconstruc]

The reproducibility crisis is not confined to any particular domain of science, and it should be obvious that reproducibility is a serious concern when modeling climate. There have in fact been critiques that climate models are sometimes parameterized with values which are selected to produce alarming results, so demanding that the results be reproducible could actually act as a check for such fraud. Your eagerness to "defend" climate science leaves the door wide open for bad actors to flood this domain, and the publish-or-perish problem will predictably drive some percentage of these scientists to do just that. Be very careful what you ask for.