FW: [geo] ethics-the responsibility of the editors, reviewer or papers opposing climate engineering

[Eugene I. Gordon]

-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene I. Gordon [mailto:eugg...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:54 AM
To: 'oliver.w...@gmail.com'
Subject: RE: [geo] ethics-the responsibility of the editors, reviewer or
papers opposing climate engineering

Oliver Wingenter:

Thank you. Of course your closing sentence is totally correct, but it is
also totally unrealistic, and therefore not useful.

Humans as well as all other creatures are fundamentally selfish for survival
of the specie. If you doubt that read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins.
That is not an interesting hypothesis but a proven fact. Even the exceptions
such as worker bees that are totally unselfish but also sterile prove the
point. There are exceptions in individual humans but they are very rare. I
posit that now the reverse is true for humans; only by becoming unselfish
will we survive. Unfortunately the mechanism for making that transition is
not known.

So don't beat up on editors, reviewers, journalists, politicians, etc. They
are just pre programmed, or pretaught, selfish animals doing essentially
what all animals do; taking care of themselves and not seeing the bigger
picture or ignoring it if they do, unless it has benefits to them.

Geoengineering will have an impact only when we focus on the mechanisms that
get funding, allow scientific/engineering work, get access to the media and
the politicians and start speaking out forcefully. Very careful,
not-getting-to-the-real-point, testimony to our Congress won't do it in my
opinion. We need to become activists; wishing won't make it happen.


-gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Wingenter [mailto:oliver.w...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:26 PM
To: geoengineering
Cc: hjs...@aaas.org
Subject: [geo] ethics-the responsibility of the editors, reviewer or papers
opposing climate engineering

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.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[Ken Caldeira]

Obviously, the stance that ...

"I am more moral than thou, because I take the stance that we should remain ignorant of our potential to diminish suffering through direct intervention in the climate system."

is all too common, and accepted by all too many to be a sound statement of ethical superiority.

On the other hand, I think it has become all too common in the climate-related sciences to insert prescriptive and value-laden judgments into what purport to be scientific papers.

It is fine and good to be motivated by our personal values, but in our work as scientists, in writing, reviewing, and editing scientific manuscripts, we should eschew prescriptive and value-laden statements. The burden lies with us as well.



___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968