PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PRACTICES - COLUMN 163


Topical Index-Table of Contents to the Professional Ethics and Practices Columns


A topically based Index-Table of Contents, “pe&p index.xls” cov ering columns, articles, and letters to the editor that have been referred to in the PE&P columns in Excel format is on the AIPG web site in the Ethics section. This Index-Table of Contents is updated as each issue of the TPG is published. You can use it to find those items addressing a particular area of concern. Suggestions for improvements should be sent to David Abbott, dmageol@msn.com


Compiled by David M. Abbott, Jr., CPG-04570, 5055 Tamarac Street, Denver, CO 80238, 303-394-0321, fax 303-394-0543, dmageol@msn.com


Are Editors and Peer Reviewers Retarding the Progress of Science?


The headline for this topic is delib- erately provocative. It is prompted by Richard Feynman’s observations on scientific honesty in his 1974 Cargo Cult Science commencement address at Caltech in which he stated, “…you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been elimi- nated.”1 I first cited Feynman in column 52 (Mar '00) and included the quotation in my Fundamentals of Professional Ethics: Elements and Examples webinar on March 28th. I returned to the topic in column 67 (Aug/Sep '01) in which I com- mended Dr. Carol Frost of the University of Wyoming for giving the only talk that I recall hearing in over 40 years of practice that included a discussion of an approach to a problem that failed. Why is such reporting so rare? This is where I assert that scientific editors and peer reviewers retard the progress of science by failing to require authors to include such information in papers submitted and being reviewed to publication.


The progress of science is also pro- moted by encouraging those who hold an opposing view to conduct and publish research that challenges an accepted view. Such research and publication forces those promoting a particular view to adjust their views as needed


and strengthen the support for their position. Naomi Oreskes described the American rejection of Continental Drift and enthusiasm for the “new plate tec- tonic revolution” in the ‘60s and early ‘70s in America while her colleagues in England and Australia had been aware of fundamental ideas for the theory in the ‘40s and ‘50s.2


The Origin of Granite, GSA Memoir 28 (1948) contains 6 articles and a detailed discussion of the topic. Was granite crystalized from a magma, by replace- ment of pre-existing crustal material (granitization), and/or perhaps other processes? Was “magma” entirely or almost wholly liquid or could it contain a mixture of liquid and solid material? Given that field evidence supported both crystallization and granitization modes of origin in different places, which was the dominate form of origin? This fairly short book provides an excellent sum- mary of important geologic debate at the time. This book is also unusual in presenting various aspects of a vigorous scientific debate.


Science Should be Free of Politics


That was what the March for Science is supposed to be about. The March for Science’s mission statement is, “The March for Science champions robustly funded and publicly communicated sci- ence as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity. We unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest” (www.marchforscience. com, accessed 5/2/17).


But in reality, politics drives too much science. Consider House Bill 1366 introduced into the Colorado Legislature on April 27th. The bill proposed to create a position the duties of which are, “Development and periodic update of a climate action plan or similar document that sets forth a strategy, including specific policy recommenda- tions AND MEASURABLE GOALS BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE THAT ARE AT LEAST AS AMBITIOUS AS THE GOALS ESTABLISHED BY THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDER D 004 08, THE ACHIEVEMENT OF WHICH WILL BOTH REDUCE COLORADO’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND INCREASE COLORADO’S ADAPTIVE CAPABILITY TO RESPOND TO CLIMATE CHANGE, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED NEAR- TERM,MID-TERM, AND LONG-TERM DEADLINES TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS, that the state could use to address climate change and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions;” (all caps in the original). The phrase, “at least as ambitious as the goals established by the Governor’s Executive Order,” makes clear that a political goal decides what is acceptable “science.” The sponsors of this bill are Democrats Arndt and Winter. The Trump administration is not the only injector of politics into science.


We must remember that hypotheses can never be validated, only invali- dated.3 The difficulties of complex com- puter modeling and reaching conclusions based thereon are demonstrated by vary- ing weather forecast models for indi- vidual storms. The varying conclusions of modeling are perhaps best illustrated by the multiple forecast tracks of tropi-


1. Feynman, 1974, Cargo Cult Science: some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how not to fool yourself: www.calteches. library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult, accessed 3/28/17.


2. Oreskes, Naomi, 1999, The rejection of Continental Drift - theory and method in American earth science: Oxford University Press, 420 p..


3. Rahn, Perry H., Proof, validity, and some legal advice: The Professional Geologist, Nov. 2000, p. 7-8. Rahn cites K.R. Popper, 1959, The logic of scientific discovery, available in multiple formats on Amazon.


38 TPG • Jul.Aug.Sep 2017 www.aipg.org


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64