
Climate scientist claims research 'must support pre-approved narrative'
- Select a language for the TTS:
- UK English Female
- UK English Male
- US English Female
- US English Male
- Australian Female
- Australian Male
- Language selected: (auto detect) - EN
Play all audios:
Dr Patrick Brown, co-director of the climate and energy team at The Breakthrough Institute, Berkeley, claims there is a "not-so-secret formula" that scientists must follow if they
want to publish a "high-profile climate change research paper". He claims following this formula "brings professional success, but it comes at a cost to society". Dr
Brown said the formula is "more about shaping your research in specific ways to support pre-approved narratives than it is about generating useful knowledge for society". He said
papers must support "the mainstream narrative that climate change impacts are pervasive and catastrophic", focus on the reduction of "greenhouse gas emissions" - and
downplay or ignore other actions that could "negate the impact of climate change". Dr Brown - who also served as an expert peer reviewer for leading science journals - was the
lead-author of a paper that was recently published in the prestigious science journal Nature. The paper argues that "climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in
California". However, since its publication last week, Dr Brown has admitted that the paper deliberately ignored other "obviously relevant factors" - like poor forestry
management and an increase in people accidentally or deliberately starting fires. Writing in his blog, Dr Brown said: "I knew that considering these factors would make for a more
realistic and useful analysis, but I also knew that it would muddy the waters and thus make the research more difficult to publish." In its response, Nature has disputed the accusations
and denied it has preferred narrative. However, Dr Brown Writes: "My overarching advice for getting climate change impacts research published in a high-profile journal is to make sure
that it supports the mainstream narrative that climate change impacts are pervasive and catastrophic, and the primary way to deal with them is not through practical adaptation measures but
through policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions He says the second component of the formula is to "ignore or at least downplay near-term practical actions that can negate the
impact of climate change". The formula's "third element" is "to focus on metrics that are not necessarily the most illuminating or relevant but rather are
specifically designed to generate impressive numbers", claims Dr Brown. Dr Brown says the "final and perhaps most insidious element" of the formula is that papers must be
short and concise - which he says leaves "little room for discussion of complicating factors or contradictory evidence". "This incentivizes researchers to assemble and promote
only the strongest evidence in favor of the case they are making," writes Dr Borwn. "This encouragement of confirmation bias is, of course, completely contradictory to the spirit
of objective truth-seeking that many imagine animates the scientific enterprise," he adds. Regarding the omission of other relevant factors that are influencing the increase in
wildfires, Dr Brown writes: "This type of framing, where the influence of climate change is unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers.
"For example, in another recent influential _Nature_ paper, they calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to
agriculture. However, that paper does not mention that climate change is _not_ the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: temperature-related deaths have been declining, and
agricultural yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change." In response to Dr Brown's claims, Dr Magdalena Skipper, the Editor in Chief of Nature, said:
"When it comes to science, Nature does not have a preferred narrative." She said that peer reviewers of Dr Brown’s work had suggested taking other variables into account, but the
authors had argued against their inclusion. She said: "The only thing in Patrick Brown’s statements about the editorial processes in scholarly journals that we agree on is that science
should not work through the efforts by which he published this article. “We have an expectation that researchers use the most appropriate data and methods when assessing these data, and that
they include all key facts and results that are relevant to the main conclusions of a paper. “When researchers do not do so, it goes against the interests of both fellow researchers and the
research field as a whole. To deliberately not do so is, at best, highly irresponsible. “We are now carefully considering the implications of his stated actions; certainly, they reflect
poor research practices and are not in line with the standards we set for our journal.”