Opinion: Scientific integrity

“a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, 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.... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.... If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.”

This quotation (from his lecture, Cargo Cult Science ) appeared the other day in a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor from someone who sees it as a reminder of what climate scientists have forgotten. What I think, however—despite the lapses revealed in the hacked messages—is that it shows what climate scientists have remembered.Science works the same in all its fields. If the integrity of science in general weren’t assured to a very high degree—in the laboratory, in scientific publications, and in the practical consequences to which science leads—then neither the critics of climate scientists nor the rest of us could be using transistors, lasers, optical fibers, or pharmaceuticals. We couldn’t fly with only a one-in-a-million chance of mishap, and our bridges and skyscrapers could fall down, and polio would still be feared.Science is by its very nature an exploratory, trial-and-error venture which is also--sooner or later in every case--a self-correcting exercise. Ukrainian agronomist Trofim Lysenko ‘s failed agricultural theories of the 1930s and 1940s and, more recently, such concepts as polywater , cold fusion , and human clones are examples of scientific pronouncements that were eventually proven wrong or fraudulent by the step-by-step process of examination, review, and repetition.It’s true that scientists are human and that the science enterprise can suffer from the frailties of any other human endeavor. I would rather think that scientists are less susceptible than are people in other professions by jealousies, excessive ego, and the desire for fame and fortune.But these human faults do also affect scientists, which means that science sometimes suffers. Nevertheless, science recovers quickly because of its well-proven correction mechanisms that apply universally across disciplinary, political, and cultural boundaries.The current attack on the integrity of climate science is based on the proposition that this particular field somehow operates with a special, deep disrespect for the skepticism principle that Feynman advocated in the comment quoted above.I don’t believe it. H. Frederick Dylla H. Frederick Dylla is the executive director of the American Institute of Physics, which publishes Physics Today. The views expressed here are the personal views of the author.