Not exact matches
NASA chief Charles Bolden is reviewing a request from a U.S. senator for a briefing on
alleged misconduct at the agency's Ames
Research Center (ARC) in California.
The full quote:» Three investigations of the
alleged scientific
misconduct of the Climate
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues.
«Three investigations of the
alleged scientific
misconduct of the Climate
Research Unit... have confirmed... established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues.
If a complainant who has reported possible
research misconduct alleges retaliation on the part of DOT organization management, the report will be addressed by management officials who will conduct an inquiry into the allegations followed by an appropriate management action.
It is also clear that the original widely publicised complaint to the NHMRC and AHPRA
alleging professional and
research misconduct, was done for precisely the same reasons by those within public health and wind industry circles in Australia who were unhappy with the attention the issue of health damage from wind turbine noise was attracting.
And I wonder if you think any of the
alleged misconduct also applies to the thousands of scientists also doing climate related
research?
After careful review of the evidence and thoughtful deliberation, the Investigation Committee finds no evidence of the
alleged fabrication of results and nothing that rises to the level of
research misconduct having been committed by Dr Wang.