"In looking at four possible allegations of research misconduct, the committee determined that further investigation is warranted for one of those allegations. The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities."
From the Report:
The allegation inquires about whether Dr. Mann seriously deviated from accepted
practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting
research or other scholarly activities. In 2006, similar questions were asked about Dr.
Mann and these questions motivated the National Academy of Sciences to undertake an
in depth investigation of his research. The committee that wrote the report on surface
temperature reconstructions found that Dr. Mann’s science did fall well within the
bounds of accepted practice. What has changed since that time is that private emails have
come to our attention and that of the public at large, and these give us a glimpse into the
behind the scenes workings of Dr. Mann and many of his colleagues in the conduct of
Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from
CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr.
Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence
in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science
in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an
investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under
RA-10 to further consider this allegation.
In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University
administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty
conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of
faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other
interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this
An investigatory committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials will consider this
matter and present its findings and recommendations to Dr. Henry C. Foley within 120 days of
being charged. The committee will consist of the following five faculty members:
1. Dr. Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Computer Science and
2. Dr. Alan Walker, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Anthropology and
Department of Biology;
3. Dr. A. Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Chemistry and
Department of Physic;
4. Dr. Nina G. Jablonski, Head, Department of Anthropology; and
5. Dr. Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor, Department of Biology.
Ms. Candice Yekel, as Director of the Office for Research Protections and as the University’s
Research Integrity Officer, will provide administrative support and assistance to the committee.
The investigatory committee's charge will be to consider what are the bounds of accepted
practice in this instance and whether or not Dr. Mann did indeed engage in, or participate in,
directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the
academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly
Any word on investigations into who STOLE the emails?ReplyDelete
Might have been an inside-job by a whistle-blower:ReplyDelete
I say give the whistle-blower a Nobel prize, preferably snatched out of the hands of Al Gore.