To the editor:
I was pleased to see the attention the Chronicle gave to the conference, “Fixing Science: Practical Solutions for the Irreproducibility Conference,” sponsored by the National Association of Scholars (“Is a Conference to Fix Science Actually Undermining It?” The Chronicle Review, February 4th). My colleagues and I have been working on this event for many months, and the larger topic since 1994. A major goal of the conference is to model intellectual openness, which we believe is one of the keys to catching invalid scientific findings before they become embedded in the research stream, or worse, in public policy.
Ironically, the Chronicle’s account of our conference amplifies the complaints of a blogger who believes we have carried intellectual openness too far by including among our 21 speakers, seven who “could be” considered climate skeptics. To be clear, the conference is not about climate science, and the National Association of Scholars is not pushing any version of climate science. We are just living up to our principle of keeping the door open to a wide range of skeptical scientists in a wide range of disciplines.
I regret the “guilt by association” accusations against the National Association of Scholars from a handful of people who are not attending the conference. Literally, they don’t know what they are missing, and if they truly want to help in creating higher levels of reproducibility in the sciences, they ought to learn how to engage in a civil and constructive spirit with those with whom they disagree.
Peter Wood
President
National Association of Scholars
