Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:17:00.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Climate Science Controversies and the Demand for Access to Empirical Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

James W. McAllister
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I discuss calls for access to empirical data within controversies about climate science, as revealed and highlighted by the publication of the e-mail correspondence involving scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in 2009. I identify several arguments advanced for and against the sharing of scientific data. My conclusions are that, whereas transparency in science is to be valued, appeals to an unproblematic category of ‘empirical data’ in climate science do not reflect the complexities of scientific practice in this field.

Type
Norms of Science and Science Policy
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 79 , Issue 5 , December 2012 , pp. 871 - 880
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I presented a previous version of this article in the symposium “The CRU E-Mails: Perspectives from Philosophy of Science,” 22nd Biennial Meeting, Philosophy of Science Association, Montreal, November 2010. I thank the chair, Kathleen Okruhlik; the other speakers, Naomi Oreskes, Wendy S. Parker (whose later helpful comments I also gratefully acknowledge), and Kristin Shrader-Frechette; and the audience for a stimulating and enjoyable session.

References

Arzberger, Peter, Schroeder, Peter, Beaulieu, Anne, Bowker, Geof, Casey, Kathleen, Laaksonen, Leif, Moorman, David, Uhlir, Paul, and Wouters, Paul. 2004. “An International Framework to Promote Access to Data.” Science 303:1777–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baty, Phil. 2005. “Data Row Sparks Research Debate.” Times Higher Education Supplement, November 25, 39–40.Google Scholar
Berns, Kenneth I., et al. 2012. “Adaptations of Avian Flu Virus Are a Cause for Concern.” Science 335:660–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bezuidenhout, Louise. 2011. “Data Sharing and Dual-Use Issues.” Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9298-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogen, James, and Woodward, James. 1988. “Saving the Phenomena.” Philosophical Review 97:303–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, William F., and Chinn, Clark A.. 1994. “Scientists’ Responses to Anomalous Data: Evidence from Psychology, History, and Philosophy of Science.” In PSA 1994: Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, ed. Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Burian, Richard M., 304–13. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, Partha, and David, Paul A.. 1994. “Toward a New Economics of Science.” Research Policy 23:487–521.Google Scholar
Edwards, Paul N. 2010. A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fienberg, Stephen E., Martin, Margaret E., and Straf, Miron L., eds. 1985. Sharing Research Data. Washington, DC: National Academy.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, Ann. 2001. “‘Invisible’ Astronomers Give Their All to the Sloan.” Science 292:1472–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouchier, Ron A. M., et al. 2012. “Pause on Avian Flu Transmission Research.” Science 335:400–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franklin, Allan. 1981. “Millikan's Published and Unpublished Data on Oil Drops.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 11:187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffernan, Olive. 2009. “Climate Data Spat Intensifies.” Nature 460:787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heidelberger, Michael. 2003. “Theory-Ladenness and Scientific Instruments in Experimentation.” In The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation, ed. Radder, Hans, 138–51. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Hones, Michael J. 1990. “Reproducibility as a Methodological Imperative in Experimental Research.” In PSA 1990: Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, ed. Fine, Arthur, Forbes, Micky, and Wessels, Linda, 585–99. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2010. The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jane, Heeney, Catherine, Hawkins, Naomi, Vries, Jantina de, and Boddington, Paula. 2009. “Data Sharing in Genomics: Re-shaping Scientific Practice.” Nature Reviews Genetics 10:331–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lahsen, Myanna. 2010. “The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge: An Editorial Essay.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1:162–71.Google Scholar
Leonelli, Sabina. 2010. “Packaging Small Facts for Re-use: Databases in Model Organism Biology.” In How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, ed. Howlett, Peter and Morgan, Mary S., 325–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Michael E. 2012. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1942/1973. “The Normative Structure of Science.” Repr. in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, ed. Storer, Norman W., 267–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morice, Colin P., Kennedy, John J., Rayner, Nick A., and Jones, Phil D.. 2012. “Quantifying Uncertainties in Global and Regional Temperature Change Using an Ensemble of Observational Estimates: The HadCRUT4 Data Set.” Journal of Geophysical Research 117:D08101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Michael. 2011. Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Palese, Peter, and Wang, Taia T.. 2012. “H5N1 Influenza Viruses: Facts, Not Fear.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:2211–13.Google Scholar
Pearce, Fred. 2010. Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming. London: Guardian.Google Scholar
Reich, Eugenie Samuel. 2011. “Speedy Neutrinos Challenge Physicists.” Nature 477:520.Google ScholarPubMed
Ryghaug, Marianne, and Skj⊘lsvold, Tomas Moe. 2010. “The Global Warming of Climate Science: Climategate and the Construction of Scientific Facts.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24:287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, Dudley. 1982. “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy.” Philosophy of Science 49:485–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieber, Joan E. 1991. “Openness in the Social Sciences: Sharing Data.” Ethics and Behavior 1:69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. 1962. “Models of Data.” In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, ed. Nagel, Ernest, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarski, Alfred, 252–61. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
University of East Anglia. 2010. “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review.” Report, University of East Anglia. http://www.cce-review.org.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Ann S. 2008. “New Knowledge from Old Data: The Role of Standards in the Sharing and Reuse of Ecological Data.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 33:631–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar