More COI at PNAS
Science or marketing?
Imagine if a researcher for a pharmaceutical company publishes a paper about the inadequacy of a current medical intervention and suggests a new medication. Then, we later find out that the editor of the paper also works for the same pharmaceutical company and the medication being suggested uses the editor’s patent. And that the researcher of the paper on the health crisis never mentions as part of a standard disclosure that the company (and potentially the author) has a major financial stake in the research outcomes.
That would be a serious lapse in publishing ethics1.
Indeed, that is what has happened in the PNAS article making its way with hurricane speed all across the internet.
There is a paper in PNAS stirring up a media storm. The work by Michael Wehner and James P. Kossin contributes to a long debate about the adequacy of the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale. They argue for the addition of a Category 6 storm.
Wehner lists his affiliation with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Kossin lists his affiliation with First Street Foundation and University of Wisconsin.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. How can this be so? As an affiliate of the First Street Foundation there is a rather significant financial and political interest in the research. This should be spelled out.
First Street Foundation is a major climate analytics firm with far reaching political involvement. Not only does it provide services for a fee as a non-profit but it runs a seperate LLC that also sells its services. The firm stands to gain financially and politically from the PNAS work.
The editor for the PNAS article is Kerry Emanual who also works for the First Street Foundation.
This is a rather significant conflict of interest in that the editor also stands to gain financially and politically from publication of the work.
But let’s dig a little deeper.
A key aspect of the PNAS article rests on Emanuel's theoretical work developing a Potential Intensity index in 2000. Now, this is not necessarily directly related to Emanuel's patent for turning out hurricane tracks but it is not unrelated either.
Nor is it unrelated to the First Street Foundation’s financial and political interests. First Street uses Emanuel’s personal consulting business, Wind Risk Tech, built on the patent for the development of its hurricane tracks.
Finally, and more vaguely, the PNAS paper makes a point to differentiate its method from work by Adam Sobel et al in 2016. That work was co-authored by Tim Hall and others, and conducted while several of the authors were engaged with the insurance industry funded research initiative at Columbia University active at the time.
Today, Sobel advises for Jupiter Intelligence. Hall works for The Climate Service- Kossin's most recent former employer.
Hall and Kossin joined The Climate Service at the same time. The company was shortly thereafter acquired by the financial analytics behemoth S&P Global.
First Street, Jupiter, and The Climate Service/S&P Global are all competitors. They sell basically the same thing. So, does the PNAS paper actually have an element of market competition to it? Is First Street demonstrating how their methods are different from their competitors?
That I might speculate on this point is indicative of the problem of conflicts of interests that become apparent after publication. While the media has framed the PNAS work as a public interest piece concerning climate change it is most certainly not. It is research to support a specific business interest.
I've mentioned the PNAS COI on a listserve for tropical cyclone scientists and sent an email to the PNAS Editor in Chief, Dr. Berenbaum. No one has yet responded.
It’s apparent that PNAS is having significant trouble managing its editors conflicts of interest. You’ll recall of the rather public scandal regarding the conflicts of interest of another of PNAS editors, Jane Lubchenco.
Regardless of what I think about the methods by Whener and Kossin or the value of a new hurricane category, it’s clear that the climate sciences and the environmental sciences more generally, are harboring a culture of non-disclosure.
Many may not know what proper disclosure should look like. Journals and professional organizations need to up their disclosure game to keep pace with the extent of industry involvement and researcher financial stakes tied to climate science.
This is a problem a long time in the making. It will continue to get worse as the climate consulting business is expected to continue to grow.
What is being masqueraded about in journals as climate change science in the public interest is often (when not just political maneuvering) business technical documentation and marketing.
Correction February 8: This sentence originally read “…lapse in scientific integrity.” It is more accurate to say a lapse in publishing ethics.
It is unsurprising to me (and should be to any remotely educated American with an interest in scientific research broadly) that the "scientific" community is corrupted by conflicts of interest, monetary carrots for favored findings, disreputable study standards and generally absurd levels of bad scientific construction. John Ioannidis has been beating that drum in regards to social science for decades and most certainly after the middle school science fair levels of research conducted on Covid by the CDC, WHO, NIH, JAMA, and other public health menaces, he must be having many sleepless nights. The capper is his own experience with the Santa Clara study, the findings of which were completely repudiated by what passes for virology "experts" at universities and public health organizations in 2020. Four years later, it's apparent that not only was the godfather of modern scientific study design on the money with his findings, the sky-is-falling idiots who declared him unfit look like the craven amateurs that they are.
Climate science is the most obvious haven for bad modelling, bad prognostication and big egos because it's where all of the money is. If only amongst that community, reputable, rigorous scientists weren't treated as evil luddites in the pockets of big oil. The effect on science generally and the public is apparent and frightening. There is dog pile knowledge on the climate held by my supposedly informed and well educated family and friends. It is enough for them to read the Atlantic or WaPo to get their analysis. If challenged in any way, they resort to ad hominem or worse, appeal to authority to defend completely indefensible positions...after all, Al Gore couldn't be wrong. He's a genius.