After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.... (emphasis mine)He also noted a potential reason for why this particular paper was published:
In hindsight, it is possible to see why the review process of the paper by Spencer and Braswell did not fulfill its aim... the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.I will not go into too much depth over this particular paper, or the editor's subsequent resignation. The websites Skeptical Science (a site that often makes it into my "Weekly Roundups") and RealClimate have created detailed rebuttals of this paper, as well as a post covering Wager's resignation.
Also see my summary.
Instead, the purpose of this post is to explain why it is so important for science journals to be extra careful about papers that claim to "challenge the consensus." Papers of this type need to be reviewed meticulously with a fine-toothed comb. Extra care needs to be taken to ensure these papers are absolutely air tight before they are published, especially when the motives of the authors are clearly not scientific. For instance, Spencer has made it painfully clear that his motives are in fact not scientific, once saying that his job was "to minimize the role of government.”
You often hear criticisms from a variety of consensus-challenging groups, complaining that scientific journals discriminate against consensus-challenging papers.. Often this results in the creation of pseudo-journals, meant to give an unearned impression of legitimacy and authority to these groups.
Is it unwise to believe in the improbable?
You may be wondering why such a double standard does (and should) exist. Well it mostly comes down to basic probability. It is tough for scientists to reach a consensus about anything (Even Climate Change took decades before it was accepted as consensus). As a result, theories that eventually become a scientific consensus tend to have gathered a large quantity of evidence supporting said consensus, including numerous peer reviewed scientific papers. This means that if the challenging paper is correct, all these other experts, observations, and peer reviewed papers are incorrect and/or flawed. This means that the prior probability of the challenging paper being accurate (meaning all other papers are flawed) is much lower than the probability the challenging paper has some kind of fundamental flaw. In other words, the claim that "the consensus is wrong" is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence (A Bayesian Concept). This obviously does not mean the challenging paper should be discarded. If the challenging paper turns out to be air tight, then the probability that the consensus is in-fact wrong rises dramatically! This has actually happened quite often before.
This is a actually pretty simple concept. If your friend shows you a video of his 21st birthday party, and you know he is currently over 21, then you have little reason to doubt the authenticity of the video. However, if your friend shows you a video of him lifting a full sized car with just his pinky finger, then you have reason to suspect something is amiss with the video. You have reason to check and see if the video contains by special effects technology or optical tricks.
More of the boring same old, same old
In addition to probability, there are also pragmatic reasons for why journals should be initially skeptical of consensus-challenging papers. This mainly has to do with the effects of media sensationalism. Papers that confirm the consensus are not often given much publicity. This is due to the fact that, if a paper merely confirms the consensus, it is likely just one of hundreds or even thousands of papers that do essentially the same thing. Pretty boring stuff for the average person... However, when a paper challenges the consensus, it is by its very nature sensational. Suddenly headlines start popping up saying "Scientists finds evidence against [insert consensus here]" or something to that effect. This is sometimes due to the attempt from media sources to make themselves seem balanced on given issues, even if the preponderance of evidence is amazingly one-sided (such as one would expect when dealing with a consensus). As a result, even if the study is quickly discredited and later removed, there can be lasting (sometimes dangerous) effects on the society at large.
Probably the most famous example of the damaging effects of a bad study came from the British physician Andrew Wakefield. In 1998, he published a paper in the British journal The Lancet, which claimed to provide evidence for a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Despite the fact that numerous studies contradicted his paper, the discovery that he fudged his numbers, conflicts of interest, and the retraction from 10 of the paper's 12 authors, the damage had already been done. For instance, Ireland experienced a major decline in vaccination rates, as well as a subsequent rise in measles cases. This was largely believed to be caused by the study. The Wakefield paper also provided fuel for the fire to the growing anti-vaccination movement in the US and UK, which has been blamed for hundreds (likely thousands) of preventable deaths in the US alone. Wakefield's paper was not fully retracted until 2010, nearly 12 years after the paper's initial publication.
The case of the Wakefield study provides a grim reminder to scientists of the dangers in allowing anti-consensus papers to be published without extra-rigorous review, especially when personal and political motivations are involved. The results of these studies can be catastrophic, and the discovery of flaws, or even fraud, in a given study can only do so much to mitigate the situation. In addition, these studies can put the credibility of scientists and journals at risk. The Lancet is one of the world's oldest and most respected journals. There is no telling how much damage Wakefield's paper did to their reputation. There is also no telling how many resources were wasted during subsequent studies attempting to reproduce Wakefield's results, as well as in convincing parents it is safe to vaccinate their children. Wakefield's study has also likely hurt the public's perception of scientists and fueled mistrust of mainstream medicine. It is little wonder scientists would want to avoid a repeat of this disaster.
Not All Consensus-Challengers Need Give Up
It should be clear by now why scientists and scientific journals should be hesitant to publish papers that challenge the scientific consensus. The standard peer-review system does work pretty well. However, there are the occasional slip-ups. This is usually not a problem, as these slip ups are rare and mostly inconsequential. However, once journals receive a paper that challenges a strongly held consensus (especially if it also has personal and political ramifications) they have good reason to put extra effort into ensuring no slip-ups occur. Unlike most slip-ups, history shows scientists and journals that slip-ups in consensus-challenging areas can result in disaster, such as in the Wakefield case.
This doesn't mean journals should avoid consensus-challenging papers all together. If they got in the habit of doing that, bad theories may never be replaced with better ones. Science would become stagnant. Current scientific theories do not represent absolute Truth. Such a view is antithetical to science. However, scientists and journals need to be strict about consensus-challenging views due to both the realities of probability and pragmatism. Not all theories are created equal.
No comments:
Post a Comment