<I>Nature</I> on Lomborg decision: "More Heat, Less Light"

Nature ^ | January 16, 2003

[cogitator]

From the opinion section of the distinguished scientific journal Nature:

More heat, less light on Lomborg

Nature 421, 195 (2003); doi:10.1038/421195b

A Danish committee has picked an appropriate target and misfired.

Not surprisingly, last week's ruling by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) that Bjørn Lomborg, in his controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist, selected data in a "severely biased" manner and exhibited poor scientific practice (see page 201) received widespread international media coverage. But whether the DCSD emerged with credit also deserves reflection.

Lomborg's hypothesis that warnings issued by environmentalists and scientists are unwarranted, presented in the book rather than in the peer-reviewed literature, has been widely criticized by researchers. But what is the DCSD's authority to tackle what many consider a polemical rather than scientific book?

The DCSD was the first European body to be set up — by the Danish Research Agency — to examine issues of scientific misconduct, and it is still unusual in being mandated to consider any complaint about any scientist, or any scientific work, emerging from both the private and public sectors. A look at its guiding principles (see http://www.forsk.dk/eng/index.htm) and its judgement (see http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm) confirms that the DCSD has the freedom to assess the case because, arguably, Lomborg presented himself as an academic and his book as a scientific argument. Appropriately enough, the DCSD emphasizes that it is assessing Lomborg's scientific standards, not his conclusions.

The national context of this independent assessment is relevant here. Lomborg was made director of the politically influential Danish Environmental Assessment Institute, founded by the new right-wing government after the 2001 elections, solely on the strength of it. According to its own statutes, the institute must be headed by a scientist of appropriate research experience, whereas Lomborg has little additional experience.

Lomborg's claims in his book are certainly significant and potentially influential. The Danish public, at least, has the right to know whether he is arguing on scientifically rigorous grounds, not least given the influence of his position.

Unfortunately, the DCSD has left itself in a weak position. It did not conduct an independent analysis of the book but relied on published criticisms, especially a controversial selection published by Scientific American. Even to call this judgement's basis a 'meta-analysis' would be too generous: there is, for example, no justification given for the particular selection of published critiques. Furthermore, through a tangled combination of translation and legalese, the committee's judgement characterizes Lomborg as "objectively dishonest" while at the same time stating that they have no evidence for what most people would call dishonesty: deliberate misrepresentation. That subtle, not to say tortuous, distinction has been lost in the media coverage.

There remains a need for rigorous scrutiny of Lomborg's methods, given his prominence, his claims to serious analysis, and the polarized debate surrounding his book. But this episode leaves everyone little wiser, and the waters surrounding Lomborg even muddier.

[cogitator]

I particularly like this statement:

"There remains a need for rigorous scrutiny of Lomborg's methods, given his prominence, his claims to serious analysis, and the polarized debate surrounding his book."

Very true.

[Support Free Republic]

Raise Your Hand If You Want To Donate To Free Republic!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Hans]

It am always suprised at the willingness of
scientists to whore it around politically. I supose it comes
from their years at University.

[corkoman]

Scientific American has become a gas-bag leftist rag - it is about as deep as OMNI magazine was at its best.

[Egregious Philbin]

Lomborg and his detractors are BOTH trying to spin science to favor their argument. The truth is somewhere in between.

[cogitator]

Lomborg and his detractors are BOTH trying to spin science to favor their argument. The truth is somewhere in between.

I definitely think you got THAT right.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Scientific American has become a gas-bag leftist rag - it is about as deep as OMNI magazine was at its best.

I purchased the recent special issue on "Time" with some trepidation. Your judgment is confirmed. Its treatment in this limited case was annoyingly superficial. SA is another institution that the academic Left of my generation has been allowed to run into the ground.

[ghost of nixon]

Lomborg and his detractors are BOTH trying to spin science to favor their argument. The truth is somewhere in between

did you even read Lomborg's book?

[theFIRMbss]

> SA is another institution that the academic Left of my generation has been allowed to run into the ground.

Yes. It seems to me
that Physics Today is now
what SA once was.

[Welsh Rabbit]

What I would like to see is Paul Ehrlich called out to account for his scientific dishonesty and incompetence instead of getting prestigious awards.

[Bob]

...the committee's judgement characterizes Lomborg as "objectively dishonest" while at the same time stating that they have no evidence for what most people would call dishonesty: deliberate misrepresentation.

If Lomborg is truly "objectively dishonest", there should at least be a few of his misrepresentations to highlight. This is enough to make one wonder about the basic honesty (or political motivation) of the committee.