- Email: [email protected]
A reputation in tatters
OPINION
A reputation in tatters Climate scientists can’t afford to sit and hope their troubles will blow over. They should do what the PR professionals do, says Bob Ward THE controversies swirling around the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK have damaged the reputations not just of the institutions involved but of climate scientists in general. In this respect, climate science is facing reputational meltdown similar to the Roman Catholic church’s over allegations of child abuse and the British parliament’s following the scandal over MPs’ expenses. Even if the claims of misconduct and incompetence are eventually proven to be largely untrue, or confined to a few bad apples, mud sticks. The perceived wrongdoings of a few have raised doubts about the many. The response of most climate scientists has been to cross their fingers and hope for the best. Many no doubt hope that the independent inquiries into the IPCC and CRU will draw a line under their problems. These will help, but they are unlikely to undo the damage caused by months of hostile news reports and attacks by critics. Make no mistake, the damage is real. As Ralph Cicerone, the president of the US National Academy of Sciences, wrote in an editorial in Science in February: “Public opinion has moved toward the view that scientists often try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ideas and that scientists will withhold data and try to manipulate some aspects of peer review to prevent dissent.” He concluded that “the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the 26 | NewScientist | 29 May 2010
credibility of science as a whole” impossible. It is much better to (vol 327, p 624). learn from the successes and An opinion poll at the turn failures of organisations that have of the year found that the dealt with similar blows to their proportion of people in the US public standing. who trust scientists as a source Climate science needs of information about global professional help to rebuild warming had dropped from its reputation. It could do worse 83 per cent in 2008 to 74 per cent. than follow the advice given by A survey carried out by the BBC Leslie Gaines-Ross, a “reputation in February found that just 26 per strategist” at PR company cent of British people now believe Weber Shandwick, in her recent climate change is established as book Corporate Reputation: largely human made, down from 12 steps to safeguarding and 41 per cent in November last year. recovering reputation. Regaining the confidence and “It typically takes four trust of the public is never easy. years for a company to Hunkering down and hoping rescue and restore a for the best – climate science’s current strategy – makes it almost broken reputation”
Gaines-Ross’s strategy is based on her analysis of how various organisations responded to crises, such as desktop-printer firm Xerox, whose business plummeted during the 1990s, and NASA after the Columbia shuttle disaster in 2003. The first step she suggests is to “take the heat – leader first”. In many cases, chief executives who publicly accept responsibility for corporate failings can begin to reverse the freefall of their company’s reputations. But not always. If the leader is held at least partly responsible for the fall from grace, it can be almost impossible to convince critics that a new direction can be charted with that person at the helm. This is the dilemma facing the heads of the IPCC and CRU. Both have been blamed for their organisations’ problems, not least for the way in which they have dealt with critics, and both have been subjected to public calls for their removal. Both organisations appear to believe they can repair their reputations without a change of leadership. The second step outlined by Gaines-Ross is to “communicate tirelessly”. Yet many climate researchers have avoided the media and the public, at least until the inquiries have reported. This reaction may be understandable, but it has backfired. Journalists following the story have often been unable to find spokespeople willing to defend climate science. In this case, “no comment” is commonly interpreted as an admission of silent, collective guilt.
Comment on these stories at www.NewScientist.com/opinion
Bob Ward is policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics
One minute with…
Arthur Demarest The leading Mayan archaeologist explains why an ethical approach is more important than discovering royal palaces You have worked at Cancuén, in northern Guatemala, for over 10 years. Do you believe the Maya’s fabled collapse began here? No, the Maya collapse did not begin at this site nor at any other specific place. However, Cancuén, which was a major city with a huge royal palace, is critical to understanding the process of collapse, which was not a single, sudden phenomenon, but a series of events that took place over 250 years. What caused the collapse of the Maya? Between AD 700 and 1050, the Maya kingdoms collapsed one by one, in some cases due to war, but also from overpopulation, environmental issues or drought. Beneath those causes were deeper structural problems that had built up over several centuries. The massive investments in architecture, art and war that made the Maya so remarkable were also symptoms of the problems created by the rivalry of kings, the growing royal and noble classes, and the expensive ceremonies and military competitions that they generated. The economic and political system had become archaic and uncompetitive with other states. Catastrophe was inevitable. Why was Cancuén so important? Cancuén’s destruction in AD 800 was pivotal because it was a strategic site for the whole Maya world. After it collapsed the western trade routes were shut down and people migrated elsewhere. Both factors had a domino effect, accelerating the fall of the other Maya kingdoms. You preach the gospel of ethical archaeology. What do you mean by that? Ethical archaeology means using archaeology and the publicity it generates to help impoverished people living near the sites. For example, when the excavation has finished, these people should benefit from managing site parks, tourism and other related activities. You have said that ethics are more important than discovering royal palaces. Why? Discovering royal palaces contributes to scientific
Profile Arthur Demarest is head of the Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and excavated the Mayan royal palace in Cancuén
knowledge but it doesn’t help the people who live nearby, such as the modern descendants of the Maya. When the archaeologists finish their projects, they leave in their wake a social disaster of unemployment which leads to looting and then deforestation. Do you think the future of archaeology depends on an ethical approach? Yes. We cannot ignore the humanitarian crises that surround us in the developing world. The future of my field is really about collaborative work – training and educating those who live around the sites. We must save the ruins, but also the forests in which they are located and the people who live there. This must be the way forward or there will be no future for those sites or for archaeology.
Does this approach benefit you? I have made major discoveries because the local Maya have told me where to excavate. They have also helped me recover stolen monuments. Interview by Michael Bawaya
29 May 2010 | NewScientist | 27
Jerry Rabinowitz
Remaining visible is only a start, though: climate scientists also need to be careful what they say. They must realise that they face doubts not just about published results but also about their conduct and honesty. It simply won’t work for scientists to continue to appeal to the weight of the evidence while refusing to discuss the integrity of their profession. The harm has been increased by a perceived reluctance to admit even the possibility of mistakes or wrongdoing. The third step put forward by Gaines-Ross is “don’t underestimate your critics and competitors”. This means not only recognising the skill with which the opponents of climate research have executed their campaigns through blogs and other media, but also acknowledging the validity of some of their criticisms. It is clear, for instance, that climate scientists need better standards of transparency that allow for scrutiny not just by their peers but also by critics from outside the world of research. It is also important to engage with those critics. That doesn’t mean conceding to arguments based on ideology rather than evidence, but there is an obligation to help the public understand the causes of climate change, as well as the options for avoiding and dealing with the consequences. To begin the process of rebuilding trust in their profession, climate scientists need to follow these three steps. But that is just the start. Gaines-Ross estimates that it typically takes four years for a company to rescue and restore a broken reputation. Winning back public confidence is a marathon, not a sprint. But you can’t win at all if you don’t step up to the starting line. n
A reputation in tatters Climate scientists can’t afford to sit and hope their troubles will blow over. They should do what the PR professionals do, says Bob Ward THE controversies swirling around the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK have damaged the reputations not just of the institutions involved but of climate scientists in general. In this respect, climate science is facing reputational meltdown similar to the Roman Catholic church’s over allegations of child abuse and the British parliament’s following the scandal over MPs’ expenses. Even if the claims of misconduct and incompetence are eventually proven to be largely untrue, or confined to a few bad apples, mud sticks. The perceived wrongdoings of a few have raised doubts about the many. The response of most climate scientists has been to cross their fingers and hope for the best. Many no doubt hope that the independent inquiries into the IPCC and CRU will draw a line under their problems. These will help, but they are unlikely to undo the damage caused by months of hostile news reports and attacks by critics. Make no mistake, the damage is real. As Ralph Cicerone, the president of the US National Academy of Sciences, wrote in an editorial in Science in February: “Public opinion has moved toward the view that scientists often try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ideas and that scientists will withhold data and try to manipulate some aspects of peer review to prevent dissent.” He concluded that “the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the 26 | NewScientist | 29 May 2010
credibility of science as a whole” impossible. It is much better to (vol 327, p 624). learn from the successes and An opinion poll at the turn failures of organisations that have of the year found that the dealt with similar blows to their proportion of people in the US public standing. who trust scientists as a source Climate science needs of information about global professional help to rebuild warming had dropped from its reputation. It could do worse 83 per cent in 2008 to 74 per cent. than follow the advice given by A survey carried out by the BBC Leslie Gaines-Ross, a “reputation in February found that just 26 per strategist” at PR company cent of British people now believe Weber Shandwick, in her recent climate change is established as book Corporate Reputation: largely human made, down from 12 steps to safeguarding and 41 per cent in November last year. recovering reputation. Regaining the confidence and “It typically takes four trust of the public is never easy. years for a company to Hunkering down and hoping rescue and restore a for the best – climate science’s current strategy – makes it almost broken reputation”
Gaines-Ross’s strategy is based on her analysis of how various organisations responded to crises, such as desktop-printer firm Xerox, whose business plummeted during the 1990s, and NASA after the Columbia shuttle disaster in 2003. The first step she suggests is to “take the heat – leader first”. In many cases, chief executives who publicly accept responsibility for corporate failings can begin to reverse the freefall of their company’s reputations. But not always. If the leader is held at least partly responsible for the fall from grace, it can be almost impossible to convince critics that a new direction can be charted with that person at the helm. This is the dilemma facing the heads of the IPCC and CRU. Both have been blamed for their organisations’ problems, not least for the way in which they have dealt with critics, and both have been subjected to public calls for their removal. Both organisations appear to believe they can repair their reputations without a change of leadership. The second step outlined by Gaines-Ross is to “communicate tirelessly”. Yet many climate researchers have avoided the media and the public, at least until the inquiries have reported. This reaction may be understandable, but it has backfired. Journalists following the story have often been unable to find spokespeople willing to defend climate science. In this case, “no comment” is commonly interpreted as an admission of silent, collective guilt.
Comment on these stories at www.NewScientist.com/opinion
Bob Ward is policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics
One minute with…
Arthur Demarest The leading Mayan archaeologist explains why an ethical approach is more important than discovering royal palaces You have worked at Cancuén, in northern Guatemala, for over 10 years. Do you believe the Maya’s fabled collapse began here? No, the Maya collapse did not begin at this site nor at any other specific place. However, Cancuén, which was a major city with a huge royal palace, is critical to understanding the process of collapse, which was not a single, sudden phenomenon, but a series of events that took place over 250 years. What caused the collapse of the Maya? Between AD 700 and 1050, the Maya kingdoms collapsed one by one, in some cases due to war, but also from overpopulation, environmental issues or drought. Beneath those causes were deeper structural problems that had built up over several centuries. The massive investments in architecture, art and war that made the Maya so remarkable were also symptoms of the problems created by the rivalry of kings, the growing royal and noble classes, and the expensive ceremonies and military competitions that they generated. The economic and political system had become archaic and uncompetitive with other states. Catastrophe was inevitable. Why was Cancuén so important? Cancuén’s destruction in AD 800 was pivotal because it was a strategic site for the whole Maya world. After it collapsed the western trade routes were shut down and people migrated elsewhere. Both factors had a domino effect, accelerating the fall of the other Maya kingdoms. You preach the gospel of ethical archaeology. What do you mean by that? Ethical archaeology means using archaeology and the publicity it generates to help impoverished people living near the sites. For example, when the excavation has finished, these people should benefit from managing site parks, tourism and other related activities. You have said that ethics are more important than discovering royal palaces. Why? Discovering royal palaces contributes to scientific
Profile Arthur Demarest is head of the Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and excavated the Mayan royal palace in Cancuén
knowledge but it doesn’t help the people who live nearby, such as the modern descendants of the Maya. When the archaeologists finish their projects, they leave in their wake a social disaster of unemployment which leads to looting and then deforestation. Do you think the future of archaeology depends on an ethical approach? Yes. We cannot ignore the humanitarian crises that surround us in the developing world. The future of my field is really about collaborative work – training and educating those who live around the sites. We must save the ruins, but also the forests in which they are located and the people who live there. This must be the way forward or there will be no future for those sites or for archaeology.
Does this approach benefit you? I have made major discoveries because the local Maya have told me where to excavate. They have also helped me recover stolen monuments. Interview by Michael Bawaya
29 May 2010 | NewScientist | 27
Jerry Rabinowitz
Remaining visible is only a start, though: climate scientists also need to be careful what they say. They must realise that they face doubts not just about published results but also about their conduct and honesty. It simply won’t work for scientists to continue to appeal to the weight of the evidence while refusing to discuss the integrity of their profession. The harm has been increased by a perceived reluctance to admit even the possibility of mistakes or wrongdoing. The third step put forward by Gaines-Ross is “don’t underestimate your critics and competitors”. This means not only recognising the skill with which the opponents of climate research have executed their campaigns through blogs and other media, but also acknowledging the validity of some of their criticisms. It is clear, for instance, that climate scientists need better standards of transparency that allow for scrutiny not just by their peers but also by critics from outside the world of research. It is also important to engage with those critics. That doesn’t mean conceding to arguments based on ideology rather than evidence, but there is an obligation to help the public understand the causes of climate change, as well as the options for avoiding and dealing with the consequences. To begin the process of rebuilding trust in their profession, climate scientists need to follow these three steps. But that is just the start. Gaines-Ross estimates that it typically takes four years for a company to rescue and restore a broken reputation. Winning back public confidence is a marathon, not a sprint. But you can’t win at all if you don’t step up to the starting line. n