A few articles on New Scientist this week peaked my interest. My reading should, of course, be much wider than simply New Scientist – but it’s easy and fun to read, so I do.
UK university ordered to give data to climate sceptic
Queens University in Belfast has been ordered to submit their data on tree rings to an “amateur climate analyst and sceptic”, the legal basis being the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
It’s a scary thought, in some regards, that a scientist’s work is not necessarily protected Intellectual Property (IP). My university encourages IP of its academics and postgraduates, but almost purely in the thought of potential commercialisation. My work doesn’t fall into those parameters, I’m certainly not going to commercialise or patent anything resulting from my research, but it’s comforting to know that my research is protected. We have right of embargo on our theses, to ensure that we can publish results without anyone pinching data and pipping us at the post. We also maintain copyright over any original work produced while a student at the university.
The citizen requesting this tree ring data (the “amateur”, although I wonder what constitutes that title) is an outspoken climate change sceptic. He thinks this Irish data will show that there was a period of warming a thousand years ago which roughly approximates the warming recorded in our lifetimes. The scientists, however, have already published a study claiming that tree rings in one of their study species (Irish Oak) are useful in estimating rainfall, but not necessarily temperature. So here I see a danger of an “amateur” analysing data he is presumably not qualified to analyse, and taking from it fallacious conclusions.
Of course science should be communicable to the public. Clearly I believe in that simple fact since that’s the whole point of this blog. [For those not in the know, I would like to pursue a career in science communication once I’ve finished my PhD in Biology]. And I truly believe any article published in the journal Dendrochronologia is unlikely to be accessible to that public. Heck, most of you probably don’t know what dendrochronology is! [It’s the science of analysing tree rings, the mostly annual rings laid down by a growing tree in its trunk]. But surely there is a better way of getting this information across without the public having to submit for data under freedom of information laws. Apart from anything else, we use pretty tricky data analysis in science, and I would never assume that someone without past experience could follow our, sometimes convoluted, analyses.
This sceptic should be able to access this data. It doesn’t appear to me, at first glance, that it would help his cause, but he should have access to it anyway. So why is science failing him in that respect? What does it mean for IP and the correct analysis of scientific data if anybody can lay a claim to hard won data?
Why the science candidate is standing for Parliament
On a related note, Michael Brooks wrote a piece for New Scientist explaining why he is running for a seat in the UK Parliament.
It strikes me as slightly sad that he even needs to explain this at all! Surely there are too many benefits of scientifically literate members of Parliament to need to lay them out. But apparently he needs to.
I say it’s a related note, because clearly IP and freedom of information laws are made by politicians. So it would probably help if they understood the stance of the scientists, engineers and likewise who are collecting data and wish to have protection of their hard work.
But there’s the other aspect that is clear to our generation; climate change (warming, ocean salinisation, desertification) is and will continue to be a leading topic for our lives. Governments will spend much of the next few decades trying to sort out what to do about it. Where should funding for research go? How should countries be supporting the remediation of environmental problems? How are we to ensure the persistence of humans on an overly crowded, rapidly deteriorating little planet?
So they should be looking to include scientists in parliament. Just as the amateur from the story above might misinterpret and misunderstand tree ring data, so too might politicians lose out when trying to interpret scientific data.
“Science is not just an indulgence for the curious”, says Brooks. And he is right; science is also at the forefront of working out these issues of the current global environment, and doing its darndest to remediate and mitigate. A scientist in politics is just too good an opportunity to pass up. That’s even without counting the fact that we’re considered more trustworthy than even the police! I’m not sure where that leaves a scientist turned politician though – somewhere in the middle, perhaps?
