From: Stein A. Stromme (stromme@mi.uib.no)
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 04:50:57 EST
[Stein A. Stromme]
| Apologies for following up on my own posting, but I found Lomborg's
| page
|
| <http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm>
|
| which contains pointers to the decision by The Danish Committees on
| Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD)
|
| <http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm>
Here is a quote from the decision showing that there is nothing new
compared to the Sci Am discussion.
DCSD did consider whether a better basis for evaluating the
cases under review would be obtained by itself forming ad hoc
committees with accredited experts in the respective
fields. A number of members voiced the view that sourcing new
expert evaluations might possibly create scope to establish
whether the defendant has not only-as the experts at
Scientific American claim-used selective data, but whether he
has done so wilfully in order to delude the public, and hence
enable DCSD to ascertain the presence or absence of the
subjective conditions required to uphold scientific
dishonesty.
DCSD, however, has reached the conclusion that new experts
would scarcely be able to add new dimensions to the case. In
this process of deliberation, a crucial role has also been
played by the fact that even on the existing basis there is
agreement at DCSD in adjudging the defendant's conduct to be
contrary to good scientific practice, as expressed below.
Stein
-- Stein Arild Str¯mme +47 55584825, +47 95801887 Universitetet i Bergen Fax: +47 55589672 Matematisk institutt www.mi.uib.no/~stromme Johs Brunsg 12, N-5008 BERGEN stromme@mi.uib.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 19 2003 - 00:08:28 EST