By now we’ve all heard about “climate gate.” The evidence so far is damning, to say the least. I’ve certainly had my fill of the politicizing of pseudoscience, and I hope this new episode gets people questioning what they’ve blindly accepted for quite some time.
In any case, I imagine things will be a bit awkward at Copenhagen next week.
Reading through the current tale of scientific dishonesty and whitewashing, I can’t help but be reminded of the Michael Bellesiles incident.
In 2000, Emory Professor Bellesiles published Arming America: the Origins of a National Gun Culture. The central thesis was that guns were not nearly as vital a part of early American life as had been previously thought. In fact, he claimed, what few guns did exist in the hands of the citizenry were mediocre and rarely maintained.
We were still in the shadow of the late Clinton years, and the media loved the very idea of the book, even if they hadn’t read it. The early reviews, all from the same side of the political pond, were unanimous in their praise. Michael Zuckerman wrote,
This book changes everything. The way we think about guns and violence in America will never be the same. Neither will our notions of manhood, race, the rise of big business, or our national character. Neither will our understanding of the Second Amendment. Michael Bellesiles is the NRA’s worst nightmare.
Or how about this chestnut?
Thinking people who deplore Americans’ addiction to gun violence have been waiting a long time for this information. Michael Bellesiles has uncovered dramatic historical truths that shatter the ‘Ten Commandments’ hokum peddled by the National Rifle Association and its ersatz Moses.
It was one big love-in, and Columbia even awarded him the Bancroft Prize for the book.
Of course, serious claims demand serious proof. At first blush, it seemed that Bellesiles had that proof. Upon closer scrutiny, however, things started to fall apart. That Bellesiles had cherry-picked his sources to prove an a priori claim was evident; that he had fabricated those sources was devastating.
One supposed source was a set of San Fransisco probate records from 1849-50 and 1858-59. The only problem? They don’t exist. All extant documents were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake. When asked to provide raw data for other claims, he said that he’d done all his notes on yellow legal pads, which had been damaged in an office flood.
Oh, and those Vermont estate records? Altered by hackers, apparently.
The Bancroft Prize was rescinded, and following a review of the allegations by Emory University, Professor Bellesiles resigned his post. Supporters went into apoplexy, either defending their early allegiance to the book, or claiming they’d been hoodwinked.
The ramifications were tremendous, and there were real questions in the history field regarding the validity of peer review (fact-checking, as law clerks do, may be a better practice). A debate among librarians was sparked by the simple question, “do we keep this book on the shelves, and if so, do we catalog it separately as a ‘discredited work?'”
Academic dishonesty is nothing new, but when it’s used to promote a partisian political agenda under the guise of Big Science, we’ve got ourselves a bit of a problem. When all the science turns out to be wrong, we’ve got an obligation to shelve the issue until reliable data comes in.