Anybody with an education in the
sciences can tell when a credentialed charlatan is violating scientific method, «cherry - picking» data, manipulating computer simulations (climate models) to «draw the curve, then plot the points,» concealing his raw observational data sets from properly skeptical examiners, corrupting academic peer review (both to suppress the publication
of colleagues» studies casting doubt upon the reviewing officers» pet hypotheses and to ensure that the submissions
of «The Team» do not suffer impediments to publication), and concerting all these violations
of professional
ethical standards by way
of back - room confabs and some
of the most incredibly stupid e-mails this
side of Enron's «Smartest Guys in the Room.»
That question is this: when you choose the profession
of science aren't you really choosing an
ethical system that says «honesty does trump all other values» That is we know the field
of ethics is littered with all sorts
of interesting dilemmas (mostly around lying) And we know that
ethical well meaning people come down on all
sides of this question.