M1A2
Kristin Aydt
Argosy University

M1A2
Ethical norms are a framework to distinguish acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. These rules of conduct are not universal, but instead are established by academic, professional and scientific institutions. Research ethics address such issues as trust, fairness, rigor, protocols, and attribution of authorship. The public and policy makers are dependent on the scientific community for reliable information on key societal issues. Codes of conduct allow for the vetting of information and the determination of scientific expertise. Violations of research ethics negatively impact the credibility of the researchers involved, and their affiliated institutions. Ethical breaches may also create confusion and distrust among the public, and can be exploited by policy makers.
One highly publicized example of an ethical breach involves the plagiarism and misconduct charges leveled against Edward Wegman, a statistics professor at George Mason University. In 2005, Wegman agreed to work with Joe Barton, a congressman from Texas, regarding a request to prepare an opinion on the credibility of key findings of climate science research. In 2006, Wegman testified in front of the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Wegman’s testimony (Wegman, Said, & Scott, 2006) was critical of previous climate science research, particularly of a paper published in Nature (Mann, Bradley & Hughes, 1998). The testimony, commonly referred to as the Wegman Report, was used as a talking point against the establishment of policies to address climate change.
The Wegman Report (Wegman et al., 2006) alleged that the field of climate science was discredited by the improper use of statistics, the limited involvement of trained statisticians, as well as by inadequate sharing of research codes, data, and analysis methods. In addition, Wegman concluded that a tainted peer review process existed within the climate science publication culture. In February 2006, the public was alerted to the Wegman Report through a Barton press release and Wall Street Journal article. These sources claimed that research ethics in the field of climate science were unsound, and that changes to energy policy were therefore unnecessary. Partly because of the findings of the Wegman Report, the Senate and Congress did not pass any measures to address climate change.
Four years after his testimony, concerns arose regarding Wegman’s own research conduct. In 2008, Wegman, Said and Scott published a paper in Computational Data and Statistics Analysis (CSDA) dealing with purported deficiencies in the peer-review process in climate science. The CSDA paper was presented as scientific proof of one of the key findings of the Wegman Report. After a review by three plagiarism experts, the publisher of the journal forced the retraction of the Wegman, Said and Scott paper. The plagiarism panel concluded that portions of the article were taken verbatim from Wikipedia and from a textbook (Bradley, 1999) without attribution. This duplication was easily detected through the use of plagiarism software. Concerns were also raised regarding how Wegman and his co-authors used data, and about the peer review process for the CSDA paper. Ultimately, Wegman’s testimony has been discredited and his professional reputation has been compromised.
It is not possible to determine the full impact of the work of Wegman and his co-authors on policy makers, or on the public’s attitudes regarding climate change. The Wegman Report was certainly influential, and was a cornerstone of the political attack on climate science. When political forces partner with researchers willing to engage in conduct outside of ethical norms, the communication of consensus scientific findings can become obstructed.
There is a strong scientific consensus that human activities are affecting global climate. One recent paper reported that 97-98% of climate researchers agree on the basic tenets of anthropogenic climate change (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010). Wegman and his co-authors had no background training or expertise in the climate or earth sciences, yet their reports, testimony, and scientific papers contributed to the American public’s skepticism regarding the consensus view of climate science.
To make informed decisions on how to respond to important problems, society needs to rely on credible scientific research. It can be difficult to distinguish between research that is sound and that which fails to meet research standards. Edward Wegman’s research was used by political entities to impact the public and legislators for a policy agenda. The credibility of his work was found to be deficient due to his failure to meet ethical research guidelines, and his lack of expertise in the field of climate science. Codes of conduct for ethical research provide a framework to discern what is credible expertise and the state of current scientific understand.

References
Anderegg, W. R., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(27), 12107-12109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Bradley, R. S. (1999). Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing climates of the Quarternay (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.
Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S., & Hughes, M. K. (1998, April 23). Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature, 392(6678), 779-787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/33859
Wegman, E. J., Said, Y. H., & Scott, D. W. (2006, July 14). Ad hoc committee report on the ’Hockey Stick’ global climate reconstruction. Congressional Report (United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce).