Kafka At Albany (CRU Gang Associate Accused Of GW Fraud)

Freeborn John blog | Sunday, March 15, 2009 | Peter Risdon

[an amused spectator]

http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2009/03/kafka-at-albany.html

Last June I reported on the allegations of academic fraud levelled by a British mathematician, Doug Keenan, against Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of New York State University at Albany.

Dr Keenan alleged that in work that has come to be widely cited in climate studies, work that included the collation of data from temperature measuring stations in China, Professor Wang made statements that "cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated."

In August 2007, Dr Keenan submitted a report (pdf) of his allegations to the Vice President for Research at Wang's university and an inquiry was initiated. In February 2008 this was escalated into a full investigation by the Inquiry Committee.

All this was summarised in my earlier post, together with quotations from Dr Keenan's allegation.

So far, things had run as might be expected. A fraud had been alleged, the University at Albany looked into it and decided to hold a formal investigation. Dr Keenan waited to be contacted by the investigation and asked to put his case, in line with the university's Policy and Procedures on Misconduct in Research and Scholarship (.doc). The relevant section of this document runs as follows (emphasis added):

III. A. Rights and Responsibilities of the Complainant
Rights: The Vice President for Research will make every effort to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of complainants. The University will protect, to the maximum extent possible, the position and the reputation of those who in good faith report alleged misconduct in research.

The Vice President for Research will work to ensure that complainants will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of their employment or other status at the University and will review instances of alleged retaliation for appropriate action. Any alleged or apparent retaliation should be reported immediately to the Vice President for Research.

The complainant will be provided a copy of the formal allegations when and if an inquiry is opened. The complainant will have the opportunity to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to the complainant’s report or testimony, and will be informed in writing of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and of the final determination. After the final determination and upon request to the Vice President for Research, the complainant shall be given access to the full documentation.

Responsibilities: The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating fully with an inquiry and/or investigation.

Dr Keenan lived up to the responsibility as stated in the final paragraph above so far as he could. He had made the allegation in good faith and given Professor Wang an opportunity to explain how he had reached his results, an opportunity the Professor had not taken. Keenan maintained confidentiality. In order to cooperate with the investigation, though he would first have to be contacted by it. Dr Keenan waited.

Late in May 2008 a communication arrived from Albany. It said:

After careful review of the evidence and thoughtful deliberation, the Investigation Committee finds no evidence of the alleged fabrication of results and nothing that rises to the level of research misconduct having been committed by DR. Wang.

As the institutional official responsible for this case, I have accepted the Committee's findings and the Report. You have fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of this letter to provide any comments to add to the report for the record.

Contrary to its own rules, the Committee had not given Keenan the opportunity to "review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports".

That's astonishing, but here's where it becomes Kafkaesque. Keenan was being asked, in this most recent communication, to comment on the report of the Committee. But he was not sent a copy of the report. When he challenged this, he received an email from Adrienne Bonilla explaining that:

[Keenan] did not receive a copy of the Investigation report because the report did not include portions addressing your role and opinions in the investigation phase.

Per the UAlbany Misconduct policy:

VI. E. Investigation Report and Recommendations of the Vice President for Research

"...The Vice President for Research will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal and will provide the complainant with those portions of the draft report that address the complainant's role and opinions in the investigation. The respondent and complainant will be given 14 calendar days from the transmission of the report to provide their written comments. Any written responses to the report by either party will be made part of the report and record.

Keenan then wrote to the Vice President for Research at Albany, Lynn Videka, pointing out the various ways in which the University had breached its own policy, stating that its behaviour was consistent with a cover up, and pointing out that Professor Wang has received more than $7 million in grants from a couple of US federal agencies... (more @ Freeborn John link & updates)

[an amused spectator]

Naturally, the Watermelons @ Albany have been blowing off Dr. Keenan.

======================

From the CRU Gang emails:

Wang Fabrications

From: "D.J. Keenan" To: "Steve McIntyre" Cc: "Phil Jones" Subject: Wang fabrications Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO

Steve,

I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang case.

First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.)

Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang.

Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to him only, and I told no one about them. In Wang's reply, though, Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd.

Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud if he did not retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was up to me.

Fifth, I put a draft on my web site-- http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm --and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations for improvement.

I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notify the media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud; it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the case makes this easier--no scientific knowledge is required to understand things.

I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to publish a retraction of Wang's claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879 There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature would simply say "no").

Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al. [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper.

Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. Phil?

Kind wishes, Doug

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

[Matchett-PI]

bttt

[centurion316]

Another dirty little academic secret comes to light. Faculty members who demonstrate the ability to capture multiple large grants become very BMOC (BWOC). They are like minor gods and can do no wrong so long as they continue to drag grant bucks onto campus. Of course, if they were to commit murder, things would be a little different. They would be politely asked not to leave the body in front of the Student Union, in full view of visiting parents, alums, etc. If they would kindly deposit the body in one of the bins in the alley behind the academic buildings then the building and grounds crew could attend to their little mess.

No surprises here.

[Melchior]

The depth of corruption in the academic community is astounding. Seemingly it makes no difference if it is Cal-Berkeley (the Lawrence RadLab and Almagordo and Sandia fiascos) and Podunk Junior College.