Posted by Jonathan Adler:
The Senatorial Inquisition of AEI:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_02_04-2007_02_10.shtml#1171057432
Spurred by the [1]allegations that the American Enterprise Institute
sought to "buy scientists" to challenge the IPCC report, four
Democratic Senators wrote to AEI President Chris DeMuth to challenge
AEI's actions and demand an apology. In [2]their letter, Senators
Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, and John Kerry,
alleged that if the published reports that AEI sought to "bribe"
scientists were accurate, "it would be both disappointing and
inexcusable." The Senators further proclaimed that they "would not
stand silently by while organizations attempt to undermine science
through offers of significant amounts of money." The letter concludes:
We hope that you will respond to this letter by telling us that the
news reports that you offered to pay scientists up to $10,000 are
incorrect. If not, we trust that AEI will publicly apologize for
this conduct and demonstrate its sincerity by properly disciplining
those responsible.
In the meantime, it is clear that the Senators were not reserving
judgement about AEI's alleged conduct. In a [3]press release about the
letter, Senator Sanders declared:
It's outrageous that a right-wing think tank with ties to Big Oil
and the Bush Administration is trying to twist scientific findings
for their political purposes on the pressing issue of climate
change. . . . The IPCC report confirms the urgency of the problem
and adds to the scientific consensus that global warming is
happening now and is human-caused. Is there no limit to the lengths
that some corporate-funded groups will go to protect their donors'
short-term profits? Is the fate of the entire planet not important
enough for them to put the common interest above their narrow
self-interest? The truth is that this scandalous behavior on the
part of AEI is just the latest example of how big money interests
distort and undermine honest debate on the important issues facing
our country in so many areas.
AEI President Chris DeMuth did not take this lying down. His strongly
worded response (complete with attachments) is [4]posted on AEI's
website here. Writes DeMuth:
I am saddened that you would not only believe the reports but would
seek to give them credence by repeating them in ways that are even
more reckless than the original article published last Friday by
the Guardian.
The accusations of the Guardian article, and of your letter, are
false. I sent around a memorandum to my AEI colleagues the day the
article was published, attaching the letters we had sent to various
scientists and policy experts knowledgeable about climate change
issues . . . . Relevant portions of these documents were in
circulation on the Internet last weekend and in the press earlier
this week; they were readily available to anyone on your staffs who
had wished to look into the matter or to call me or anyone else at
AEI about it. . . .
The accusations of your letter, while couched in the form of
questions and insinuations, are as I said harshly worded, and are
extremely serious coming from four members of the United States
Senate. And they are leveled at a long-established research
institution, familiar to all of you, which takes the integrity and
independence of its research equally seriously . . . . So it is not
a rhetorical question to ask whether you stand by your letter and
think it was well-considered.
Finally, I must take exception to your pointed opening reference to
�the depths to which some would sink to undermine the scientific
consensus that human activity is the major source of global climate
change.� I believe you have overstated the scientific consensus on
the subject, but, even if you have not, I find it worrisome that
four powerful political leaders would object to scientific dissent
per se. Although you later give a formulaic nod to the right of
dissent, you object to being paid a �significant� sum for
dissenting research, which rather limits your conception of
permissible dissent.
Consensus--and freedom to challenge consensus--are equally vital to
the progress of science. History, including recent history, is
replete with examples of expert consensus that turned out in the
fullness of time to be mistaken. When I look over AEI�s
publications and conferences on climate change issues, I can indeed
find arguments against (as well as for) aspects of IPCC modeling
and other matters where some have urged that public debate should
cease. I want you to know that AEI will continue to sponsor
research and host speakers on climate change issues whose views we
regard as reasonable and worthy of attention--never seeking to
undermine any consensus for its own sake, but also never paying
heed to whether particular views are in or out of official favor.
AEI scholars have stood in opposition to established orthodoxy many
times; we cherish our intellectual freedom and are proud of the
uses we have made of that freedom; we will not be silenced by
threats to that freedom.
The Wall Street Journal editorializes on the exchange [5]here.
References
1. http://volokh.com/posts/1170541963.shtml
2. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/files/AEI-Letter.pdf
3. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=268584
4. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25590,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
5. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009649
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
