/*Introductory note: NAS president Peter Wood sent the following letter
by email on December 9, 2015 to California members of the National
Academy of Sciences.* /
Dear Members of the National Academy of Sciences,
This is an NAS to NAS letter—which requires some “disambiguation.” I am
president of the National Association of Scholars, founded in 1987, and
whose organizers apparently didn’t give much thought to the space
already occupied by those initials by the National Academy of Sciences,
founded 124 years earlier. I’ll defer to the Academy’s seniority by
reserving NAS in what follows for the body of scientists who
incorporated during President Lincoln’s tenure. The National Association
of Scholars is a broad-based group of academics that includes professors
in the humanities and social sciences (I’m an anthropologist) as well as
the natural sciences.
The occasion for this letter is Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, Editor-in-Chief
of/Science/. We are concerned that she is the only official candidate to
be the next NAS president. To be clear, the National Association of
Scholars does not oppose Dr. McNutt’s candidacy. We simply believe that
members of an important national organization like NAS should have at
least two candidates to consider when voting for your next president.
Indeed, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS),
which publishes/Science/, always has two candidates for president and
its other elected positions. Other scientific organizations also have
two candidates for their elected positions.
Also, we want to bring to your attention our serious concerns about the
current state of discourse in the sciences. Dr. McNutt has played a
significant role in three active controversies involving national
regulatory policy that deserve attention in themselves and that are also
part of a larger problem. The larger problem is how the scientific
establishment, particularly/Science/and NAS, should evaluate and respond
to serious dissent from legitimate scientists. This is an especially
important consideration for NAS, which was established to provide
“independent, objective advice on issues that affect people's lives
worldwide.”
The three controversies are:
1. The status of the*linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model*for
the biological effects of nuclear radiation. The prominence of the
model stems from the June 29, 1956/Science/paper, “Genetic Effects of
Atomic Radiation,” authored by the NAS Committee on the Biological
Effects of Atomic Radiation. This paper is now widely questioned and
has been seriously critiqued in many peer-reviewed publications,
including two detailed 2015 papers. These criticisms are being taken
seriously around the world, as summarized in a December 2, 2015/Wall
Street Journal/commentary. In August 2015 four distinguished critics of
LNT made a formal request to Dr. McNutt to examine the evidence of
fundamental flaws in the 1956 paper and retract it. However, on August
11, 2015 Dr. McNutt rejected this request without even reviewing the
detailed evidence. Furthermore, Dr. McNutt did not even consider
recusing herself and having independent reviewers examine evidence that
challenges the validity of both a/Science/paper and an NAS Committee Report.
This is a consequential matter that bears on a great deal of national
public policy, as the LNT model has served as the basis for risk
assessment and risk management of radiation and chemical carcinogens for
decades, but now needs to be seriously reassessed. This reassessment
could profoundly alter many regulations from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and other government
agencies. The relevant documents regarding the 1956/Science/paper and
Dr. McNutt can be examined atwww.nas.org/images/documents/LNT.pdf
<http://www.nas.org/images/documents/LNT.pdf>.
2. Extensive evidence of scientific misconduct in the epidemiology
of*fine particulate air pollution*(PM2.5) and its relationship to
mortality. Since 1997 EPA has claimed that lifetime inhalation of about
a teaspoon of particles with diameter less than 2.5
microns/causes/premature death in the United States and it established
an national regulation based on this claim. /Science/has provided
extensive news coverage of this issue and its regulatory significance,
but has never published any scientific criticism of this questionable
claim, which is largely based on nontransparent research.
Earlier this year, nine accomplished scientists and academics submitted
to/Science well/-documented evidence of misconduct by several of the
PM2.5 researchers relied upon by EPA. The evidence of misconduct was
first submitted to Dr. McNutt in a detailed June 4, 2015 email letter,
then in a detailed July 20, 2015 Policy Forum manuscript “Transparent
Science is Necessary for EPA Regulations,” and finally in an August 17,
2015 Perspective manuscript “Particulate Matter Does Not Cause Premature
Deaths.” Dr. McNutt and two/Science/editors immediately rejected the
letter and the manuscripts and never conducted any internal or external
review of the evidence. This a consequential matter because many
multi-billion dollar EPA air pollution regulations, such as, the Clean
Power Plan, are primarily justified by the claim that PM2.5 is killing
Americans. The relevant documents regarding this controversy can be
examined athttps://www.nas.org/images/documents/PM2.5.pdf.
3/. Science/promotes the so-called*consensus model of climate change*and
excludes any contrary views. This issue has become so polarized and
polarizing that it is difficult to bring up, but at some point the
scientific community will have to reckon with the dramatic discrepancies
between current climate models and substantial parts of the empirical
record. Recent evidence of/Science/bias on this issue is the June 26,
2015 article by Dr. Thomas R. Karl, “Possible artifacts of data biases
in the recent global surface warming hiatus”; the July 3, 2015 McNutt
editorial, “The beyond-two-degree inferno”; the November 13, 2015 McNutt
editorial, “Climate warning, 50 years later”; and the November 25, 2015
AAAS News Release, “AAAS Leads Coalition to Protest Climate Science
Inquiry.”
Dr. McNutt’s position is, of course, consistent with the official
position of the AAAS. But the attempt to declare that the “pause” in
global warming was an illusion has not been accepted by several
respected and well-informed scientists. One would not know this,
however, from reading/Science/, which has declined to publish any
dissenting views. One can be a strong supporter of the consensus model
and yet be disturbed by the role which/Science/has played in this
controversy. Dr. McNutt and the journal have acted more like partisan
activists than like responsible stewards of scientific standards
confronted with contentious claims and ambiguous evidence. The relevant
documents and commentary regarding the Karl paper and McNutt editorials
can be examined athttps://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf.
All three of these controversies have arisen on issues in which a strong
degree of scientific consensus became intertwined with public policy and
institutional self-interest. That intertwining can create selective
blindness.
Dr. McNutt has in her career found herself faced more than once with the
challenge of what to do when an entrenched orthodoxy meets a substantial
scientific challenge. The challenge in each case could itself prove to
be mistaken, but it met what most scientists would concede to be the
threshold criteria to deserve a serious hearing. Yet in each case Dr.
McNutt chose to reinforce the orthodoxy by shutting the door on the
challenge.
The three areas that I sketched above, however, seem to have such
prominence in public policy that they would warrant an even greater
investment in time, care, and attention than would be normally the case.
In that light, Dr. McNutt’s dismissive treatment of scientific
criticisms is disturbing.
I bring these matters to your attention in the hope of accomplishing two
things: raise awareness that the three issues represent threats to the
integrity of science arising from the all-too-human tendency to turn
ideas into orthodoxies; and suggest that it might be wise for NAS to
nominate as a second candidate for president someone who has a
reputation for scientific objectivity and fairness and who does not
enforce orthodoxy.
I welcome your responses. The National Association of Scholars will
present an open forum on these matters with a section reserved
specifically for NAS members. Furthermore, I will put you in contact
with NAS members who are concerned about Dr. McNutt becoming the next
NAS president.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Wood
President
National Association of Scholars
8 W. 38^th Street, Suite 503
New York, NY 10018
www.nas.org <http://www.nas.org/>
(917) 551-6770