In late 2009, e-mails from a server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were released that showed some climate scientists in an unfavorable light. Soon this scandal was known as “Climategate” and a highly charged debate started to rage on blogs and in the mass media. Much of the debate has been about the question whether anthropogenic global warming was undermined by the revelations. But ethical issues, too, became part and parcel of the debate. This article aims to contribute to this debate, assessing the e-mail affair in the light of two normative analyses of science, one proposed by Robert Merton (and developed further by some of his followers), the second by a recent suggestion to use the concept of honest brokering in science policy interactions. On the basis of these analyses, different aspects of malpractice will be discussed and possible solutions will be suggested.
AgrawalaShardul. 1998. “Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Shardul Agrawala.”Climatic Change39: 621–42.
2.
ArthurCharles. 2010. “Hacking into the Mind of the CRU Climate Change Hacker”. The Guardian, February 5.
3.
BarnesBarryDolbyR. G. A.. 1970. ‘The Scientific Ethos: A Deviant Viewpoint.”European Journal of Sociology11: 3–25.
4.
BeckUlrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Cambridge, England: Polity.
5.
Ben-DavidJ. 1991. “Norms of Science’ and the Sociological Interpretation of Scientific Behavior.” In Scientific Growth. Essays on the Social Organization and Ethos of Science, edited by Ben-DavidJoseph469–84. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
BourdieuPierre. 1975. “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason.”Social Science Information14 (6): 19–47.
7.
CollinsHarryEvansRichard. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.”Social Studies of Science32 (2): 235–96.
8.
CollinsH. M. 1985. Changing Order. London, England: SAGE.
9.
CraneDiana. 1972. Invisible Colleges. Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chaicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
EdwardsPaulSchneiderStephen. 2001. “Self-Governance and Peer-Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report.” In Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance edited by MillerC. A.EdwardsP. N., 219–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
ElzingaAant. 1995. “Shaping Worldwide Consensus: The Orchestration of Global Climate Change Research.” In Internationalism in Science, edited by ElzingaA.LundströmC., 223–55. London, England: Taylor and Graham.
13.
EtzkowitzHenryWebsterAndrew, 1994. “Science as Intellectual Property.” In Science and Technology Studies Handbook, edited by JasanoffSheilaMarkleGeraldPetersonJamesPinchTrevor, 480–505. London, England: SAGE.
14.
FlamFaye. 2009. “Penn State Scientist at Center of a Storm.”The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 8.
15.
FuntowiczSilvio ORavetzJerome R.. 1993. “Science for the Post-Normal Age.”Futures25: 73–92.
16.
GibbonsMichaelLimogesCamilleNowotnyHelgaSchwartzmanSimonScottPeterTrowMartin. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, England: SAGE.
17.
GierynThomas F.1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
GrundmannReinerStehrNico. 2003. Social Control and Knowledge in Democratic Societies. Science and Public Policy30 (3): 183–88.
19.
GrundmannReiner. 2012. The Power of Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
HaasP. M.2004. When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4): 569–592.
LambH.1965. “The Early Medieval Warm Epoch and its Sequel, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology.”Palaeoecology1: 13–37.
26.
LatourBrunoWoolgarSteve. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
MannMichael E.BradleyR. S.HughesM. K.. 1998. Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing over the Past Six Centuries.”Nature392: 779–87.
28.
MannMichael E.1999. Northern Hemisphere Temperatures during the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations.”Geophysical Research Letters26(6): 759–62.
MertonRobert K. 1942/1973. “The Normative Structure of Science.” In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations edited by MertonRobert K., 267-273. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
MetlayG.2006. “Reconsidering Renormalization: Stability and Change in 20th-Century Views on University Patents.”Social Studies of Science36(4): 565–97.
32.
MontfordA. W.2010. The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science. London: Stacey International.
SchmausWarren. 1983. “Fraud and the Norms of Science.”Science, Technology & Human Values8: 12–22.
44.
SklairLeslie. 1973. Organized Knowledge. A Sociological View of Science and Technology. St. Albans, England: Paladin Books.
45.
SiebenhünerBernd. 2003. The Changing Role of Nation States in International Environmental Assessments: The Case of the IPCC, Global Environmental Change13: 113–123.
46.
SkodvinTora. 2000. Structure and Agent in the Scientific Diplomacy of Climate Change: An Empirical Case Study of Science – Policy Interaction in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
47.
TraweekSharon. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
ZuckermanHarriet. 1988a. “The Sociology of Science.” In Handbook of Sociology, edited by SmelserNeil511–74. London, England: SAGE.
49.
ZuckermanHarriet. 1988b. “Introduction: Intellectual Property and Diverse Rights of Ownership in Science.”Science, Technology, & Human Values13(1/2): 7–16.
