6. The scrutiny and re-analysis of data by other scientists is a vital process if hypotheses are to rigorously tested and improved. It is alleged that there has been a failure to make important data available or the procedures used to adjust and analyse that data, thereby subverting a crucial scientific process. It is alleged that there has been a systematic policy of denying access to data thathas been used in publications, referring to an email from Jones to Mann on 2nd February 2005 which contains the following: “And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind”.
QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS
1 Do you agree that releasing data for others to use and to test hypotheses is an important principle?
2. If so, do you agree that this principle has been abused?
3. If so, should not data be released for use by those with the intention to undermine your case, or is there a distinction you would wish to make between legitimate and illegitimate use?
4. If not, do others have reasonable access to the data at all levels and to the description of processing steps, in order to be able to carry out such a re- analysis?
5. Can you describe clearly the data-sets and relevant meta-data that have been released; what has not been released and to what extent is it in useable form?
6. Where has it been released?
7. Where access is limited, or not possible, or not meaningful, for legitimate reasons please explain why?