THREAD ON THE ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC ADVOCACY I follow this blog fairly closely ex

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/06/irresponsible-advocacy-by-scientists/GREAT THREAD ON THE ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC ADVOCACY

I follow this blog fairly closely exactly for this reason: they cover the debate over scientific ethics fairly honestly.

My position is pretty clear: advocacy is the responsibility of journalists. And neutral research is the responsibility of scientists.

If you can’t trust politicians why should you trust scientists that are acting like politicians?

This division of labor is the only way to ensure that advocacy is responsible.

I’ve even advocated in the past, that we should hold scientists and journalists accountable for the equivalent of pollution if it turns out that they were wrong. People who are not accountable are not responsible. You are not responsible for discovering the atomic bomb. You are responsible for advocating the construction and use of it.

(I know. Sounds nuts. But that’s what propertarian logic would suggest that we do.)