Dr Curry, it’s an interesting topic, i’ll leave the recent cliamtegate2 emails aside for a second and suggest the following:
You need to try to seperate the individual from the science. Easier said than done, but bear with me.
I was always taught that the science i’m working on is discreet from myself and as such i should do everything i can to remove myself, especially emotionally, from any work i perform. The minute you become emotionally involved in your work, you loose your objectivity and your work suffers. There are countless examples of this happening and the consequences of this, no mattter how well intentioned, are usually severe.
I find this mantra helps me: “there are no wrong answers in science.”
It’s such an empowering little phrase. No matter what you do, no matter what the results are, what they show- if you’ve worked dilligently, your data and experimental methods are sound and so too, are your conclusions- then you’ve done a good job. Even if the work only shows that you don’t have an answer, or it contradicts earlier results, it’s still good work.
This is a totally different mindset to pretty much ANY other career. With this in mind the ethical side of science is actually, very simple:
1- be honest with your data, your methods and most importantly yourself.
2- know your and your experimental limitations.
3- do not get emotionally involved.
4-check it, check it again, then check it another time.
5- if in doubt, replicate.
6- when sure of a result- do everything in your power to disprove it.
Follow those easy steps and your work will be sound and free of ethical considerations. Climate science needs no seperate ethical rules, it just needs to be brought in line with more mainstream science.
