In the category of “processes of one sector intruding on another” (unwieldy, yes) is this report from The Volokh Conspiracy on one Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford, who is suing over a paper critical of his own work:
In late September, Jacobson filed a defamation suit in the District of Columbia against [Christopher] Clack and the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] for publishing a peer-reviewed critique of one of his co-authored papers in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” Jacobson further claims that the NAS wronged him by failing to follow its own publication guidelines. (The complaint is here. An explanatory statement is here.) The underlying issue is the credibility of Jacobson’s claim that 100 percent of the United States’ electricity needs may be met by renewable energy sources.
According to Jacobson, the paper authored by Clack, and joined by another 20 co-authors, made false and misleading claims about Jacobson’s work in the process of dismissing his conclusions about the potential of renewable energy. Jacobson objects to Clack, et al., charging that some of Jacobson’s conclusions were based upon unfounded, undisclosed assumptions and “modeling error.” Jacobson further claims that both Clack and the NAS were aware of these alleged problems before the paper was published. Clack, et al., for their part, have responded in detail to Jacobson’s claims. Readers may judge for themselves who has the better of the argument.Although NAS published Jacobson’s response in “PNAS” as well, Jacobson is not satisfied. He is demanding a retraction and is seeking compensatory damages of $10 million each from Clack and NAS. Some of Clack’s co-authors, who include Ken Caldeira, David Victor and Jane Long, are identified in the complaint but were not named as defendants in the suit. (For what it’s worth, Jacobson’s co-authors do not appear to be parties to this suit either.)
Suing is what happens in the private sector. In science? Dude, you just return fire, and let the peers qualified to comment render a verdict in time-honored fashion. The damage you’re doing to the scientific sector by introducing potentially career-ruining forces that are not connected to the scientific merit of arguments is huge and idiotic, as it introduces foreign influences that do not have the sector’s goals at heart.
Just stop it. Now.
