In a controversial bid to expose supposed bias in a top journal, a US climate expert shocked fellow scientists by revealing that he tailored a wildfire study to emphasize global warming.
While supporters applauded Patrick Brown for flagging what he called a one-sided climate “narrative” in academic publishing, his move surprised at least one of his coauthors — and angered the editors of leading journal Nature.
“I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,” read the headline to an article signed by Brown published on Tuesday on the news site The Free Press.
Photo: Reuters
He said that he deliberately focused on the effect from higher temperatures on wildfire risk in a study in the journal, excluding other factors such as land management.
“I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like,” the article read. “That’s not the way science should work.”
One of the named coauthors of the study, Steven Davis, an Earth system science professor at the University of California, Irvine, said that Brown’s comments took him “by surprise.”
“Patrick may have made decisions that he thought would help the paper be published, but we don’t know whether a different paper would have been rejected,” he said in an e-mail. “I don’t think he has much evidence to support his strong claims that editors and reviewers are biased.”
Brown is codirector of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute, a private nonprofit group that researches technological responses to environmental issues, including boosting nuclear energy.
He did not respond to a request to comment, but wrote about his revelation in detail on his blog and on X, formerly known as Twitter.
A number of posts applauded Brown for his “bravery,” “openness” and “transparency.” Others said his move raised ethical questions.
His presentation of the research in the study “is a choice, but to boast about it publicly is next level,” David Ho, a climate scientist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, wrote on X.
Ivan Oransky — cofounder of Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks cases of academic papers being withdrawn — said that Brown’s move “ends up feeling like a sting operation ... of questionable ethics.”
“Do scientists clean up the narrative to have a stronger story? Absolutely. Do scientists need to publish in order to keep their jobs? Absolutely,” Oransky said.
“It’s just that he got there by a remarkably flawed logic experiment that of course is convincing all of the people who are already convinced that scientists are not rigorous and honest about climate change in particular,” he said.
Nature’s editor-in-chief Magdalena Skipper called Brown’s actions “irresponsible,” adding that they reflected “poor research practices.”
She said that the key issue of other climate variables in the study was discussed during peer-review.
She pointed to three recent studies in the journal that explored factors other than climate change regarding marine heat waves, Amazon emissions and wildfires.
“When it comes to science, Nature does not have a preferred narrative,” she said in a statement.
Brown disagreed in a post on X.
“As someone who has been reading the Nature journal family, submitting to it, reviewing for it, and publishing in it, I think that is nonsense,” he wrote.
Scientists often complain of the pressure on young researchers to “publish or perish,” with research grants and tenure hanging on decisions by editors of science journals.
“Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted,” Brown wrote. “I know this because I am one of them.”
In publishing, “it is easy to understand how journal reviewers and editors may worry about how a complex subject, particularly one that is politically fraught, will be received by the public,” said Brian Nosek, a psychologist and cofounder of the Center for Open Science, a US body that promotes transparency in scholarship.
“But science is at its best when it leans into that complexity and does not let oversimplified, ideological narratives drive how the evidence is gathered and reported,” he added.
“It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that Patrick felt like he had to be a willing participant in oversimplifying his work to have a career in science,” he said. “In that long run, that is not a service to him, the field or humanity.”
BACKLASH: The National Party quit its decades-long partnership with the Liberal Party after their election loss to center-left Labor, which won a historic third term Australia’s National Party has split from its conservative coalition partner of more than 60 years, the Liberal Party, citing policy differences over renewable energy and after a resounding loss at a national election this month. “Its time to have a break,” Nationals leader David Littleproud told reporters yesterday. The split shows the pressure on Australia’s conservative parties after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s center-left Labor party won a historic second term in the May 3 election, powered by a voter backlash against US President Donald Trump’s policies. Under the long-standing partnership in state and federal politics, the Liberal and National coalition had shared power
NO EXCUSES: Marcos said his administration was acting on voters’ demands, but an academic said the move was emotionally motivated after a poor midterm showing Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr yesterday sought the resignation of all his Cabinet secretaries, in a move seen as an attempt to reset the political agenda and assert his authority over the second half of his single six-year term. The order came after the president’s allies failed to win a majority of Senate seats contested in the 12 polls on Monday last week, leaving Marcos facing a divided political and legislative landscape that could thwart his attempts to have an ally succeed him in 2028. “He’s talking to the people, trying to salvage whatever political capital he has left. I think it’s
Polish presidential candidates offered different visions of Poland and its relations with Ukraine in a televised debate ahead of next week’s run-off, which remains on a knife-edge. During a head-to-head debate lasting two hours, centrist Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, from Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s governing pro-European coalition, faced the Eurosceptic historian Karol Nawrocki, backed by the right-wing populist Law and Justice party (PiS). The two candidates, who qualified for the second round after coming in the top two places in the first vote on Sunday last week, clashed over Poland’s relations with Ukraine, EU policy and the track records of their
UNSCHEDULED VISIT: ‘It’s a very bulky new neighbor, but it will soon go away,’ said Johan Helberg of the 135m container ship that run aground near his house A man in Norway awoke early on Thursday to discover a huge container ship had run aground a stone’s throw from his fjord-side house — and he had slept through the commotion. For an as-yet unknown reason, the 135m NCL Salten sailed up onto shore just meters from Johan Helberg’s house in a fjord near Trondheim in central Norway. Helberg only discovered the unexpected visitor when a panicked neighbor who had rung his doorbell repeatedly to no avail gave up and called him on the phone. “The doorbell rang at a time of day when I don’t like to open,” Helberg told television
RSS