Sentences with phrase «integrity as a scientist»

Other scientists faced with data contrary to their pet theory might have swept them under the carpet, Muller says, adding «Dr. Richardson has incredible integrity as a scientist.

«To preserve our integrity as scientists, we express our firm commitment both domestically and abroad that we will never pursue scientific research for the purpose of war,» declared the Science Council of Japan (SCJ), now the nation's equivalent to the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Not sure therefore, whether any of Judith's 3 methodologies could be made to work as they assume that politicians seek the same intellectual integrity as scientists.

I was simply arguing that even if we judge Gleick or someone else to have behaved in a way we disapprove of from the perspective of citizenship in a democracy, that's separate from whether he has compromised his integrity as a scientist.

Any insinuation against his integrity as a scientist is outrageous and is clearly refuted by the correspondence.

Not exact matches

As it happens, I coined the original slogan in an attempt to keep together the western environmentalists and the Third World economists and church leaders; and of course I frowned when, subsequently, «the integrity of creation» was substituted, an expression which scientists I know find meaningless.

How scientists ultimately handle the evolution controversy in all its aspects may provide a clue as to whether they are authentically concerned about scientific integrity or whether they merely wish to advance their respective philosophical agendas, be they naturalistic or theistic.

His arguments are devoid of facts, and his masquerade as a scientist, or whatever, is galling» «attempting to debunk the integrity of the bible, and glorify the theory of evolution is simply a tactic to lure unsuspecting seekers to abandon reason and science in order to embrace an illogical, unverifiable, subjective based explanation of the universe.

2016: Kurt Godfried — Dr. Gottfried, a recognized leader in the scientific community on missile defense and nuclear terrorism who was among the founders of the Union of Concerned Scientists, was honored for his long and distinguished career as a «civic scientist,» through his advocacy for arms control, human rights, and integrity in the use of science in public policy making.

Gottfried, currently a professor emeritus of physics at Cornell University, was honored by AAAS «for his long and distinguished career as a «civic scientist,» through his advocacy for arms control, human rights, and integrity in the use of science in public policy making.»

This finding is startling to scientists who study cetaceans and other marine life, as it is becoming clearer that whales rely heavily on the integrity of their acoustic habitat.

2016 Kurt Gottfried is honored for his long and distinguished career as a «civic scientist,» through his advocacy for arms control, human rights, and integrity in the use of science in public policy making.»

«I've worked closely with scientists from Belarus for over 20 years and my experience is that they have just as much (if not more) integrity as Western scientists,» he told Science in an email.

«Singling out specific research studies, and implicitly questioning the integrity of the researchers conducting those studies, can be viewed as a form of intimidation that could deter scientists from freely carrying out research on important national challenges,» the letter states.

Most scientists follow this code of conduct as best they can out of self respect and respect for the integrity of science itself.

The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I'm sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception).

I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist.

We have to establish the correct science, and convince as many as we can of our fellow scientists, who indifferently accept the AGW arguments, trusting on the scientific integrity of scientists of other fields.

Singling out specific research studies, and implicitly questioning the integrity of the researchers conducting those studies, can be viewed as a form of intimidation that could deter scientists from freely carrying out research on important national challenges.

As scientists, policymakers, diplomats and environmentalists begin to converge on Copenhagen for climate talks, the integrity of leading climate change researchers has come under attack; a release of some 1,000 hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia in Britain has created a stir, with some suggesting the e-mails demonstrate hoarding of and manipulation of data by climate researchers.

Before that I tended like most scientists to trust on the scientific integrity of the other scientific disciplines as I would expect them to trust in my discipline (particle high energy physics).

To its credit, the Times covered a string of reviews released in mid-summer that reaffirmed the integrity of the work of the IPCC and the scientists involved in the «climategate» affair, but most reporters ignored them, as they did the InterAcademy Council's review of the IPCC, which was released a month or so later.

The IMPLICATIONS ARE: 1) The integrity of «Climate Science» is in doubt (good work will get washed by this as well) 2) The Integrity of CRU is in tatters; East Anglia and UK research not far behind 3) because these particular scientists have demonstrated that they can't be trusted with such an important task — a) Jones needs to go (minimum), wholesale shake - up and new mgmt (if allowed to continue to run) b) minimum data publication standards need to be defined and audited by Gov» t, and c) there needs to be strong oversight by an independent group of auditors (in somewhat an advesarial relationship) on integrity of data quality.

If only more climate scientists had publicly distanced themselves from the hiding of data, hiding the decline, sabotaging of peer - review and the science process generally, and the subsequent official attempts at covering all this up, then today they could possibly have been credited with having some integrity, and be seen as being bona - fide rather than agenda - driven.

I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist.

As well as comments that he continued to make (impugning the motives and integrity of other scientists) that [were] not in any way prompted by my commentAs well as comments that he continued to make (impugning the motives and integrity of other scientists) that [were] not in any way prompted by my commentas comments that he continued to make (impugning the motives and integrity of other scientists) that [were] not in any way prompted by my comments.

Basically, as far as I can see, as long as you have your scientific integrity intact, you can be corrupt, perjured, flawed, fallible, whatever - and still function effectively as a scientist.

But if you compromise your scientific integrity, it doesn't matter how upstanding you are in every other area of your life - it's game over, as far as being taken seriously as a scientist goes.

Richard Feynman idealized the good scientist as someone who displays «a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards.

I've convinced myself that it doesn't (well not as much as my own conscience and integrity), but I suspect that such things would matter to most scientists.

«As a scientist, I chose to work with the American Carbon Registry because of the team's extensive knowledge of terrestrial carbon sequestration and science - based approach to ensure the environmental integrity of offsets,» said Dr. Sarah Mack, CEO of Tierra Resources.

You've just described yourself as a professional liar... unlike your projection of your lack of integrity onto climate scientists, I'm sure your self - identification as a snake oil salesman is 100 % correct.

The statement by Mike McPhaden, President of the AGU, comes down pretty hard on Peter Gleick for having «betrayed the principles of scientific integrity» and thereby «compromised AGU's credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public's trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth's changing climate.»

«We concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists,» said the review's chairman Muir Russell.

The discredible Fiddlestick Boys stated that «Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover» This is an attack on their integrity also, look at the little snipe, that other scientists had to uncover their mistakes, as if they were hiding things.

I see that as equivalent to prosecuting scientists for violations of research integrity, which I think no one has claimed is stifling innovation and research in the US.

As scientists, the most important thing we can do is to retain our integrity and to stick to evidence and present the evidence in a balanced way.

Diane Cassell is presented by playwright Richard Bean as the lone figure of integrity who has the courage to stand up to the climate science establishment, scientists who are cravenly manipulating their research to stay on the gravy train.

You have demonstrated neither, and as such have merely added to suspicion about the integrity and even competence of climate scientists.

The first principle is you must not fool yourself — and you're the easiest person to fool... you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist.

... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is... bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist.

Perhaps this failure of honesty and integrity occurred because, as biologist Peter Medawar wrote of Teilhard de Chardin, before climate scientists deceived the public, they had taken great pains to deceive themselves.

In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

How is it that the conclusions of climate scientists can be called into question as a result of supposedly dubious statistical techniques, but the long history of nonsense from the skeptics, (such as the Robinson et al paper that accompanied the politically motivated Oregon Petition, the corporate funded propaganda campaigns of the Global Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of climate?

Most of us skeptics are still waiting to see climate scientists begin to live up to the Feynman definition of scientific integrity and to provide complete transparency about data and calculation methods, as well as to respond to the skeptical scientists in the journals.

«We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists,» Russell said.

Schmidt offered fellow scientists a framework for how to think about being more public — or public at all — as an advocate for science and, most of all, integrity.

«It is not up to us as climate scientists to clear up this mess... We will follow with great interest whether the media world has the professional and moral integrity to correct its own errors.»

As Mashey documents here, so well, this whole party has been a set - up, with scientists on one side, bound by the rules of evidence and by their own integrity, and think tanks, PR counsellors and their aides and allies on the other side, using any technique aailable (including, apparently, obtaining, using and disseminating stolen emails), to defend the right of fossil fuel companies to continue, unrestrained, in the sale and distribution of a substance that is threatening the human habitability of planet earth.

While the personal level may involve intemperate language and the like, when it gets down to the science itself the professional integrity of the scientists comes out in the way that they argue their case rationally, and from the accepted facts — it isn't arbitrary, as they must convince their peers and answer to their criticisms.