-----Original Message----- From: Eugene I. Gordon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:54 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: [geo] ethics-the responsibility of the editors, reviewer or papers opposing climate engineering
Oliver Wingenter: Thank you. Of course your closing sentence is totally correct, but it is also totally unrealistic, and therefore not useful. Humans as well as all other creatures are fundamentally selfish for survival of the specie. If you doubt that read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. That is not an interesting hypothesis but a proven fact. Even the exceptions such as worker bees that are totally unselfish but also sterile prove the point. There are exceptions in individual humans but they are very rare. I posit that now the reverse is true for humans; only by becoming unselfish will we survive. Unfortunately the mechanism for making that transition is not known. So don't beat up on editors, reviewers, journalists, politicians, etc. They are just pre programmed, or pretaught, selfish animals doing essentially what all animals do; taking care of themselves and not seeing the bigger picture or ignoring it if they do, unless it has benefits to them. Geoengineering will have an impact only when we focus on the mechanisms that get funding, allow scientific/engineering work, get access to the media and the politicians and start speaking out forcefully. Very careful, not-getting-to-the-real-point, testimony to our Congress won't do it in my opinion. We need to become activists; wishing won't make it happen. -gene -----Original Message----- From: Oliver Wingenter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:26 PM To: geoengineering Cc: [email protected] Subject: [geo] ethics-the responsibility of the editors, reviewer or papers opposing climate engineering Dear Group, When the topic of ethics in climate engineering is brought up it is usually posed as a responsibility only of the climate engineer. I would like to open the discussion to the responsibilities of journal editors, reviewers, and those that publish papers attempting to derail possibly good ideas. We as scientists have a responsibility to publish our best work and ideas so as to benefit humankind. Suppressing one's ideas is not science. It is politics. Once we start to repress ourselves, we are no better than politicians. When I started my work on methyl bromide (a stratospheric ozone depleting gas) as a graduate student at UC Irvine, it was believed that the anthropogenic source was about 50%. Just after I started my work the soil sink of methyl bromide was discovered. This and my observation of the seasonality of methyl bromide (which explain much of the discrepancy between previous investigators) and some simple modeling showed that the anthropogenic source was closer to 25%. A reviewer and other investigators in this field resisted my work wanting to ban methyl bromide as quickly as possible. If our work at UCI and those at the University of New Hampshire had been neglected, then after banning methyl bromide one would expect it's concentration to decrease about 50%. But if it's concentration only decreased 25%, it would be industry 1, scientists 1. Referring to our previous victory on CFCs. Editors should not reject or put up roadblocks to papers based on how they think it might benefit society. Thinly veiling their politics on grounds that cannot be repealed. They don't even know how a paper may impact politicians and society. They should not try to be politicians themselves. Their job is to publish the best science available to their journal. The papers they reject will be published anyway in another journal. The same can be said for reviewers. Plausible original ideas on climate engineering are rare. That is the frequency is less than one per year. However, more articles are published pointing out how these ideas may not be feasible. Suppose a new, possible beneficial climate engineering idea is published. More than likely the idea will be in its infancy and will need nurturing to see its full benefit. That is it will require further modeling studies by other groups. Especially, considering the numerous disciplines of science that are intersected. Now in the meantime modeling group A and modeling group B find some case in which this idea may do more harm than good. Both groups publish. And the potential new climate engineering idea is thrown to the wayside. Now suppose this was actually a really good idea and now society has lost a possible tool against global warming. I propose that modeling group A and modeling group B instead of just finding some cases in which the idea might fail (as in a mathematical proof) they go on to find some cases in which this idea actually works. I suggest the burden of ethics lies on editors, reviewers and groups wishing to publish papers in opposition. Any idea with detrimental outcomes will surely be exposed eventually and there is little risk of it being deployed. So there is actually little burden to the proposer. (Except of course their reputation.) But what is more important is that we do not prematurely abandon a possible and rare good idea. We do not always know the outcome of our research. Our work is just one piece of the puzzle. We cannot withhold our findings from society. The best science must come forward. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
