ethics-the responsibility of the editors, reviewer or papers opposing climate engineering

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Group,

When the topic of ethics in climate engineering is brought up it is
usually posed as a responsibility only of the climate engineer. I
would like to open the discussion to the responsibilities of journal
editors, reviewers, and those that publish papers attempting to derail
possibly good ideas.
We as scientists have a responsibility to publish our best work and
ideas so as to benefit humankind. Suppressing one's ideas is not
science. It is politics. Once we start to repress ourselves, we are
no better than politicians. When I started my work on methyl bromide
(a stratospheric ozone depleting gas) as a graduate student at UC
Irvine, it was believed that the anthropogenic source was about 50%.
Just after I started my work the soil sink of methyl bromide was
discovered. This and my observation of the seasonality of methyl
bromide (which explain much of the discrepancy between previous
investigators) and some simple modeling showed that the anthropogenic
source was closer to 25%. A reviewer and other investigators in this
field resisted my work wanting to ban methyl bromide as quickly as
possible. If our work at UCI and those at the University of New
Hampshire had been neglected, then after banning methyl bromide one
would expect it’s concentration to decrease about 50%. But if it's
concentration only decreased 25%, it would be industry 1, scientists
1. Referring to our previous victory on CFCs.

Editors should not reject or put up roadblocks to papers based on how
they think it might benefit society. Thinly veiling their politics on
grounds that cannot be repealed. They don't even know how a paper may
impact politicians and society. They should not try to be politicians
themselves. Their job is to publish the best science available to
their journal. The papers they reject will be published anyway in
another journal. The same can be said for reviewers.

Plausible original ideas on climate engineering are rare. That is the
frequency is less than one per year. However, more articles are
published pointing out how these ideas may not be feasible. Suppose a
new, possible beneficial climate engineering idea is published. More
than likely the idea will be in its infancy and will need nurturing to
see its full benefit. That is it will require further modeling studies
by other groups. Especially, considering the numerous disciplines of
science that are intersected. Now in the meantime modeling group A and
modeling group B find some case in which this idea may do more harm
than good. Both groups publish. And the potential new climate
engineering idea is thrown to the wayside. Now suppose this was
actually a really good idea and now society has lost a possible tool
against global warming. I propose that modeling group A and modeling
group B instead of just finding some cases in which the idea might
fail (as in a mathematical proof) they go on to find some cases in
which this idea actually works.

I suggest the burden of ethics lies on editors, reviewers and groups
wishing to publish papers in opposition. Any idea with detrimental
outcomes will surely be exposed eventually and there is little risk of
it being deployed. So there is actually little burden to the proposer.
(Except of course their reputation.) But what is more important is
that we do not prematurely abandon a possible and rare good idea.
We do not always know the outcome of our research. Our work is just
one piece of the puzzle. We cannot withhold our findings from society.
The best science must come forward.

[Tip]

As a firm believer in scientific research and improvement of the human
condition through scientific advances I agree with your opinion that
research should be presented without 'benefit' of political
correctness. You note that, "We as scientists have a responsibility

to publish our best work and
ideas so as to benefit humankind. Suppressing one's ideas is not
science. It is politics."

The operative word here I believe is, best. Those who are more than
willing to publish their work, not because it is their best, but
because it is expected of them, or it is a requirement of their
funding, are offering neither science or politics.
You conclude with this:

"I suggest the burden of ethics lies on editors, reviewers and groups
wishing to publish papers in opposition. Any idea with detrimental
outcomes will surely be exposed eventually and there is little risk
of
it being deployed. So there is actually little burden to the
proposer.
(Except of course their reputation.)"

May I suggest that the burden of ethics begins at the training grounds
for young scientists and continues right on to include not only
editors, publishers, both those who agree and those who disagree, but
first and foremost the burden of ethics lies with the scientist. The
source and developer of those ideas.
Your concept that, "any idea with detrimental outcomes will surely be
exposed eventually and there is little risk of it being deployed" is a
well used concept that has proven itself false throughout history.
The only example that I will offer you is the idea and 'scientific
research' that proved the superiority of the Aryan Race and the
scientific steps required to guarantee it's continued superiority. How
many millions lost their lives before that concept was proven
detrimental and finally laid to rest.
Wake up! The adage, "Garbage in, garbage out", applies to scientific
research as well as computer programing.
Ethics is the responsibility of ALL, including but certainly not
limited to opposition editors.