The discussion revolves around the ethical implications of climate scientist Wei-Hock Soon's acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry and the lack of disclosure in his scientific papers. Participants explore the potential conflicts of interest and the broader context of funding in climate research, touching on issues of ethics, scientific integrity, and the influence of corporate money on scientific literature.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of Dr. Soon's funding and disclosure practices. While there is agreement that ethical concerns exist, opinions diverge on the severity of the situation and the motivations behind corporate funding in climate research.
Participants acknowledge the complexity of the issue, including the potential for bias in scientific literature due to funding sources, but refrain from discussing specific scientific claims or outcomes related to Dr. Soon's work.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
[...]
Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oilrefining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.
It will be interesting to see if the only wrong he's done is not fully disclose where his money came from, or if he too doctored data.Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
Evo said:It's shameful on both sides, although the article states
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.
Calling them "deliverables" doesn't make them wrong, does it? So far, the only thing being frowned upon is not fully disclosing all income.Pythagorean said:It will be hard for him to make that case since:
Still doesn't make them factually wrong, although I don't believe that man is not effecting the environment, just to be clear. But I don't see in the article anything that shows what the works were specifically about. Let's wait and see what the works were and how accurate they are, before we start insinuating anything. Right now, he's only under scrutiny for not disclosing income.Pythagorean said:It's the context:
"The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money."
But deliverable is a synonym for product, which isn't how I think of scientific literature, personally.
Evo said:Still doesn't make them factually wrong.
He's accused of not disclosing income as opposed to committing fraud by falsifying data like his opponents have been accused of. He will be dealt with if he has broken rules on financial disclosure.Pythagorean said:That's a completely separate issue and has already been addressed in the scientific literature by consensus, but we can't talk about that. We're just talking about the bad ethical choices of Dr. Soon.