After tips about potential research defrauding were brought to Penn State’s attention, Mann was recently subjected to a similar investigation — not by the state’s attorney general but by members of Penn State. An inquiry committee composed of three Penn State administrators conducted an investigation in November 2009 into allegations of research misconduct made about Mann’s work.
The investigation ended in February 2010 and involved the examination of hundreds of e-mails and other written communications as well as personal interviews with Mann himself, and it found Mann innocent of research misconduct between 1998 and 2009, a time period overlapping years that are currently being investigated by Cuccinelli.
“After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data,” the committee’s Feb. 3 final report stated. “While a perception has been created ... that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so and certainly not while at Penn State.”
The report also clears Mann of “actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy e-mails, information and/or data,” “misuse of privileged or confidential information available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar,” and “actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.”
Despite the Penn State inquiry committee’s findings, Cuccinelli’s office seeks an independent conclusion.
Bill Carstensen, head of Tech’s geography department, characterized Cuccinelli’s investigation as another piece in a “pattern” of “things against universities.” He also noted the attorney general’s March letter to public universities that sparked debate over discrimination against gays.
“I understand the pretense, but what I’m seeing is a pattern,” Carstensen said. He said he signed the letter because he supports “honest, legitimate research,” from which students can learn.
“It’s not a political thing on my part,” he remarked. “The request may have been completely logical. But it’s the second or third in a list of little digs at universities about politically oriented topics. ... Academic freedom is what makes all of this work, and if we lost that, we won’t have a university.”
Kennelly believes Cuccinelli’s investigation may discourage free debate of potentially controversial research findings in the future.
“This isn’t about global warming, it’s about the principle of protecting the integrity of science from political interference,” he said.
Continue Reading: « Previous12
A version of this article appeared in the May 27 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 10 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
When climate change can't be proven beyond simple correlation, any scientist can therefore use the thinnest threads of truth to conclude that human CO2 is killing the planet. It can't be proven true or untrue. It's like proving or disproving fairies. None of us has experienced fairies OR this PROMISED climate crisis so how does proof even enter the equation I ask? Now do you see what pure political disco-science this all is? Climate Change is a product that is bought and sold and will eventually lead us down to a new dark age of fear and ignorance. This open sewer of information called the Internet is beyond our human capabilities in our tribal state of evolution. Global village? More like we are all village idiots for elevating ourselves like to Gods who have the power of Gods to regulate temperatures of planets at will.
Climate Change is so………2008, yawn.
Voter support cannot come back until the crisis does. Voters have the real consensus.
Reply to this Top
Did you read the article? The issue is not whether or not climate change is real. It's the much more relevant question of whether the state government has the power to interfere with the normal process of academic science and research. Whether or not you believe in climate change, there are many reasons to oppose the Attorney General's selective investigation when there are already existing checks that marginalize "fraudulent" research.
Your comment is indicative of the main problem in the United States. You boil everything down to partisanship. Just because the person suffering the injustice holds different beliefs from your own doesn't mean you can, in good conscience, support persecution.
The ignorance of your view on climate change is only eclipsed by the willful refusal to look at an issue like an educated participant in a political discussion.
Reply to this Top
When the grants to do the research come from the state, the checks and balances internal to academia are irrelevant. The point is not to peer review his work, but to determine whether he defrauded the state. If you accept a half-million dollar grant, why should the grantor not hold you accountable for using it appropriately?
Top
@Jason
“After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data."
There's been an investigation. It's been made by scientists. People who know how to investigate such claims. Does the attorney general's office have a team of scientists and researchers at its disposal that can do a better job?
Yes, the state has a right to ensure that its grant money is used appropriately, but that assurance has been met by standards that aren't as mired by politics as the AG's intentions. And let's not skirt around the issue - if this were something other than climate change, Cuccinelli wouldn't care. He's selectively targeting a specific type of research because of his political opposition to the concept. That's not preserving the state's integrity as a benefactor of research...it's turning state grants into a political tool.
Furthermore,
Top
My fault. Didn't read page 2. :)
Top
Meme Nine said: "None of us has experienced fairies" Likewise, no of us has experienced angels or God either, so these must not exist. Funny how so many can believe in invisible people, but not in invisible gasses!
Reply to this Top
If Michael Mann was honest in his research and received state and federal grants to conduct such research why is he or academia worried about providing the requested information?
I believe that those that protest the most only do so because, in the end, they have a great deal to hide. Researchers and scientists that sign documents proclaiming they are above state law will end up being the next audited and rightfully so.
Reply to this Top
Pssh, who needs the fourth amendment?
Reply to this Top
Rocket scientist Cuccinelli’s next campaign will be against gravity since he can't see that either. If he has any doubts about CO2 he should do the car running in the closed garage experiment.
Reply to this Top
Nice attempt to pull it all together, but CO2 isn't what kills you in car exhaust.
Reply to this Top