Testimony of Michael Crichton before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 9/28/05

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the important subject of politicization of research. In that regard, what I would like to emphasize to the committee today is the importance of independent verification to science.

In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid-and merits universal acceptance-only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't.

Thus, when adhered to, the scientific method can transcend politics. And the converse may also be true: when politics takes precedent over content, it is often because the primacy of independent verification has been overwhelmed by competing interests.

Verification may take several forms. I come from medicine, where the gold standard is the randomized double-blind study, which has been the paradigm of medical research since the 1940s.

In that vein, let me tell you a story. It's 1991, I am flying home from Germany, sitting next to a man who is almost in tears, he is so upset. He's a physician involved in an FDA study of a new drug. It's a double-blind study involving four separate teams---one plans the study, another administers the drug to patients, a third assess the effect on patients, and a fourth analyzes results. The teams do not know each other, and are prohibited from personal contact of any sort, on peril of contaminating the results. This man had been sitting in the Frankfurt airport, innocently chatting with another man, when they discovered to their mutual horror they are on two different teams studying the same drug. They were required to report their encounter to the FDA. And my companion was now waiting to see if the FDA would declare their multi-year, multi-million-dollar study invalid because of this contact.

For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. A striking feature of climate science is that it's permissible for raw data to be "touched," or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.

In saying this, I am not casting aspersions on the motives or fair-mindedness of climate scientists. Rather, what is at issue is whether the methodology of climate science is sufficiently rigorous to yield a reliable result. At the very least we should want the reassurance of independent verification by another lab, in which they make their own decisions about how to handle the data, and yet arrive at a similar result.

Because any study where a single team plans the research, carries it out, supervises the analysis, and writes their own final report, carries a very high risk of undetected bias. That risk, for example, would automatically preclude the validity of the results of a similarly structured study that tested the efficacy of a drug.

By the same token, any verification of the study by investigators with whom the researcher had a professional relationship-people with whom, for example, he had published papers in the past, would not be accepted. That's peer review by pals, and it's unavoidably biased. Yet these issues are central to the now-familiar story of the "Hockeystick graph" and the debate surrounding it.

To summarize it briefly: in 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann's results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report, in 2001.

Mann's work was immediately criticized because it didn't show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann's study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann's work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning.

Why did the UN accept Mann's report so uncritically? Why didn't they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn't do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work.

The hockeystick controversy drags on. But I would direct the Committee's attention to three aspects of this story. First, six years passed between Mann's publication and the first detailed accounts of errors in his work. This is simply too long for policymakers to wait for validated results.

Second, the flaws in Mann's work were not caught by climate scientists, but rather by outsiders-in this case, an economist and a mathematician. They had to go to great lengths to obtain data from Mann's team, which obstructed them at every turn. When the Canadians sought help from the NSF, they were told that Mann was under no obligation to provide his data to other researchers for independent verification.

Third, this kind of stonewalling is not unique. The Canadians are now attempting to replicate other climate studies and are getting the same runaround from other researchers. One prominent scientist told them: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Even further, some scientists complain the task of archiving is so time-consuming as to prevent them from getting any work done. But this is nonsense.

The first research paper I worked on was back in the 1960s, when all data were on stacks of paper. When we received a request for data from another lab, I had to stand at a Xerox machine, copying one page a minute, for several hours. Back then, it was appropriate to ask another lab who they were and why they wanted the data. Because their request meant a lot of work.

But today we can burn data to a CD, or post it at an ftp site for downloading. Archiving data is so easy it should have become standard practice a decade ago. Government grants should require a "replication package" as part of funding. Posting the package online should be a prerequisite to journal publication. And there's really no reason to exclude anyone from reviewing the data.

Of course, replication takes time. Policymakers need sound answers to the questions they ask. A faster way to get them might be to give research grants for important projects to three independent teams simultaneously. A provision of the grant would be that at the end of the study period, all three papers would be published together, with each group commenting on the findings of the other. I believe this would be the fastest way to get verified answers to important questions.

But if independent verification is the heart of science, what should policymakers do with research that is unverifiable? For example, the UN Third Assessment Report defines general circulation climate models as unverifiable. If that's true, are their predictions of any use to policymakers?

I would argue they are not. Senator Boxer has said we need more science fact. I agree-but a prediction is never a fact. In any case, if policymakers decide to weight their decisions in favor of verified research, that will provoke an effort by climate scientists to demonstrate their concerns using objectively verifiable research. I think we will all be better for it.

In closing, I want to state emphatically that nothing in my remarks should be taken to imply that we can ignore our environment, or that we should not take climate change seriously. On the contrary, we must dramatically improve our record on environmental management. That's why a focused effort on climate science, aimed at securing sound, independently verified answers to policy questions, is so important now.

I would remind the committee that in the end, it is the proper function of government to set standards for the integrity of information it uses to make policy. Those who argue government should refrain from mandating quality standards for scientific research-including some professional organizations-are merely self-serving. In an information society, public safety depends on the integrity of public information. And only government can perform that task.

Wow, that`s a website I never seen before.. Look at that, all his contributions are to the treason party. And look at the list of the others...

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/index.php?li=a

Here`s those who give 100% to Repubs, although I`m suspicious if some of these are true...

Roy Acuff
Bob Barker
David Blaine ? (He really is tricking Hollywood)
Julie Bowen
James Cagney
Neil Bush
Candace Bushnell
Drew Carey
Tom Clancy
Catherine Coulter (Catherine? Maybe that is Anns legal name?)
Shannen Doherty
Jerry Doyle
Robert Duvall
Joe Esterhas
Jeff Foxworthy
Eva Gabor (impossible, she is French!)
Kathy Lee Gifford
Sammy Hagar
Merle Haggard
Tippi Hedren
Charleton Heston
Dennis Hopper ?
Arianna Huffington (What??)
Toby Keith
Dean Koontz
Swoosie Kurtz
David Limbaugh
Art Linkletter
Heather Locklear (as if she couldn`t get any hotter)
Wink Martindale
Ted McGinley
Dr. Phil McGraw
Vince McMahon
Ricardo Montalban
Jim Nabors
Chuck Norris
Maury Povich
Prince
Cesar Romero
Jeri Ryan
Rick Schroder
Tracy Scoggins
Paul Schaffer
Jaclyn Smith
Kevin Sorbo
Robert Stack
George Strait
Randy Travis
Alex Trebek
James Woods
Martin Yan
Dwight Yoakam

He's a medical doctor. Physicians are very well versed in the scientific method of exploration and verification. Without that ability they could/would prescribe medicines and treatments based upon the latest whim.
I'd say he is imminently qualified to make these statements.

Nobody said it's immutable. Just that it's verifiable with the current data set. Science is all about the collection of data, it comes up with conclusions based on that data, then new data comes up and sometimes it back up the existing conclusions and sometimes it doesn't. Regardless of whether you believe in young earth or old earth the simple fact is we've been studying how things work for a pretty insignificant percentage of the time the world has been around, we've only just scratched the surface in most sciences, that makes the conclusions nearly infinitely fallible at this point, but they're what we've got.

I'm not sure who could be considered more qualified to discuss such matters than Crichton.

He is undeniably brilliant as proven by extraordinary success acedaemically and professionally.

He has been inside science, and stidued it from the outside.

He consistently tackles difficult scientific concepts through meticulous study, and incorporates them into fantasy thrillers that eduicate the readers about the science.

In tackling these scientific questions, he consistently forms his own opinions based on meticulous study, and presents his own insights rather than regurgutating the conventional wisdom.

Consider that Crichton is trained as a scientist with excellent academic credentials, has proven successful in exploring and explaining science in fiction works, has a track record of meticulous study and deep penetration into a wide variety of leading edge science topics....And then consider that he spent a couple years studying the science behind global warming, analyzing the data and methodoligies...And just who is it that would be more qualified to render an opinion on this subject?

Unless the Government intends to start “licensing” the right to do “science” the scientific community as a whole will continue to make its own decisions about the validity of scientific research.

I also wonder if those who would mandate that government funded research be conducted in triplicate intend to triple government funding of scientific research.

although I`m suspicious if some of these are true

I've found this site to be very reliable. In fact, NewsMeat was the only site that reported Miers' contributions to Gore, Bentsen, and the DNC in the 80s (all which are accurate and were confirmed by the White House yesterday). The other sites like FEC.gov and opensecrets only report from the 90s to the present.

Catherine Coulter (Catherine? Maybe that is Anns legal name?) No, she's a novelist...not Ann, who by the way, has only donated $250 to Pat Buchannan in her lifetime.

Eva Gabor (impossible, she is French!)

Hungarian, I think. Definitely not French.

Arianna Huffington (What??)

Oh yeah...the ultimate evidence that she just says whatever she thinks she needs to say to get attention. At that time, she was the wife (actually, beard) of Congressman Michael Huffington, a RINO and closeted homo. She is 100% attention whore.

I can't let a thread featuring Michael Crichton go without posting a speech he gave to the National Press Corp in the early 1990's that predicted the fate of the mainstream media. That guy is brilliant. Please, please read this speech if you get a chance. I see it was made in 1993, I remember watching this like it was yesterday and just nodding my head in agreement. Here it is:

Mediasaurus: The decline of conventional media"

Ahem. I do.

In that case, it seems odd that the fact that social scientists are the primary proponents of the global warming hoax bothers you less than Michael Crichton's qualifications.

PS - "State of Fear" is the only novel I have ever read with an extensive bibliography of documentation from scientific journals. Crichton has done his research, not just attended meetings of socialist academics who think wearing "Earth First" buttons and ribbons makes them special.

In that case, it seems odd that the fact that social scientists are the primary proponents of the global warming hoax bothers you less than Michael Crichton's qualifications.

Man, do you think you could jump to a bigger conclusion with fewer facts at your disposal?

I asked a question. Hint: I asked a question because I didn't know the answer.

I asked if this Michael Crighton was the writer and if he had qualifications and what they were.

I've never read his books but thought I recognized the name but wasn't sure.

Now, do you think you could possibly stop with the lectures? Sheesh. What is WRONG with you?

I enjoy Crichton's books but "State of Fear" sounded boring. Is it a good read too?

It's OK, if a bit obvious and plodding. Crichton really hasn't written a good novel since The Great Train Robbery. Both Jurassic Park and now State of Fear are really interesting more for the ideas that are explored within them rather than details of plot or character, which are quite poor in both.

And almost anything Chrichton has written is infinitely superior to the current pulp mega-seller The Da Vinci Code.

State of Fear starts off real slow and then picks up speed at the end. It is not his best book by any means, but it is an interesting read. I have read all of his books and liked Timeline, Jurrasic Park, and Eaters of the Dead the best. And Prey was pretty interesting.

that makes the conclusions nearly infinitely fallible at this point,

That's the point. Without getting into some semantic argument about what a "scientific truth" is, a "theory" is, etc, it remains that there are good social morals and rules that stand the test of time, and stand changing science.

Let science change - it always will. But don't keep twisting and turning and changing because of whatever scientific fad-of-the-day these overblown PhDs happen to be pushing today. Their God of knowledge (small "k") is fickle, indeed.

Instead, you can use a constant star as your moral compass.

Science really isn't, and shouldn't be, about morals. Science is about knowledge, the only way science should ever be applies to morals is in determining if a moral problem we're trying to solve is really a problem (for instance if global climate change is not caused by man then we have no moral duty to do anything about it, in fact we probably have a moral duty to let the planet and/ or God do whatever they want), and in determining if what we want to do about the moral problem will actually work (for instance government run anti-poverty programs never work, while we clearly have a moral duty to help the less fortunate those effort should be focused in a way that actually helps rather than ones that do nothing or in some cases actually make the problem worse).

Outside of the facts surrounding moral issues science should remain neutral. Which is exactly what Crichton is talking about, certain scientific issues have become imbued with a huge emotional/ moral/ political weight that is clouding the process. We should remove the baggage from the scientific parts of these issues and let science do what it is supposed to do: operate in a political and moral vacuum and just collect the facts and draw conclussions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.