<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" SAN DIEGO - Here at AAAS, the world&amp;#039;s largest science conference, climate science looms large\u2014climate change in working landscapes, the claims of geoengineering, dust in the Earth system and algae as a low-emissions fuel are just a few of the Earth-focused symposiums here. But public opinion and a string of recent controversies\u2014from East Anglia&amp;#039;s controversial stolen e-mails to the mistaken rate of Himalayan glacier melt\u2014have clouded climate change headlines. Is there a need for better transparency in climate science? The answer to this question, according to this panel of leaders in science, is yes. Here are some of the lessons drawn from experience and three National Research Council studies on what scientists do well\u2014and what they need to do to make their work clearer, data more available and individual scientists accountable. Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences  -Opinion polls have shown that there has been a corrosion of the public perception of science in recent years. This is, in part, a product of scientists doing a bad job of reaching out with their work and connecting to the public.  -Access and transparency to research data are of the utmost importance. We should provide it to anyone who is interested enough to ask their own questions. The root of the University of East Anglia dispute is, after all, about access to data.  -Scientists should answer requests for information\u2014to a point. There&amp;#039;s a limit to the amount and kind\u2014such as original samples\u2014of data that scientists can provide.  James J. McCarthy, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, Prof of Biological Oceanography -The Himalayan glacier, IPCC and East Anglia glitches are a wake-up call to scientists, who were under the impression that these would be understood as small errors. But for those not close to the science, the validity of the climate science was called into question. Even if climate researchers understand that if you take out the East Anglia data altogether, the state of the science doesn&amp;#039;t change, public perception does not necessary follow.  -When the IPCC found trouble in parts of its data, it should have immediately named names and publications where those errors occurred.  -Scientists need to reach out to the press and public better: When blizzards hit the east coast of the United States, instead of understanding this as a product of more moisture in the air\u2014which is predicted as a byproduct of global warming\u2014it was seen by too  many in the media as a temperature indicator.  Phillip Sharp, professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology -With the expansion of databases, digital data and the ability to manipulate data, we&amp;#039;re seeing a scientific revolution\u2014in speed and availability of research materials. At the end of the day, in this digital era, it is the individual researcher&amp;#039;s responsibility to stay ethical.  -Making data available to the public is the top priority.  Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, Master of Trinity College and Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge -There are many examples where the issue of science and transparency come up: When mad cow disease first broke out, the first sensible guess from scientists was that it could not spread to humans; after learning better, an exceedingly strict backlash ensued. For the use of embryonic stem cells in research, scientists took &amp;quot;upstream initiative&amp;quot; and communicated early and effectively with politicians. Climate change is an uncertain and complex issue. The rise in CO2 and the planetary physics provide a compelling case for climate change. But there are lots of conflicting views when you dig further. We as scientists must make it clear that some sources hold more weight then others. Jerry North, Texas A&amp;amp;amp;M -We must understand that the community of climate scientists is very diverse: There are those who work for years to get satellites launched and gather data; those who go into the field and infer past climates; and those who run the models of climate simulations. The cultures are very different from one another and not all the fields have matured in dealing with the public.  -At the end of the day, the climate science paradigm is quite healthy. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a5050/4346628/>