Read on Twitter
Hey #energytwitter & #sciencetwitter remember the lawsuit filed by Mark Jacobson against @DrChrisClack & the @theNAEng because PNAS published a paper that was critical of his work? That was unprecedented. [THREAD] https://twitter.com/curryja/status/925901126699905025
Jacobson ended up withdrawing his lawsuit. Meanwhile, Clack and the NAS had already racked up non-trivial legal bills. https://twitter.com/saeverley/status/966806116947644416
Well today the court ruled that Jacobson must cover the legal fees for @DrChrisClack and the @theNAEng
Chris wrote to me: “Courts are not the proper forum to resolve important scientific disagreements.”
I agree!
Chris wrote to me: “Courts are not the proper forum to resolve important scientific disagreements.”
I agree!
He also shared:
“The Judge’s order provides helpful legal precedent that should allow scientists to express themselves responsibly on vital societal issues without having to be concerned with the prospect of economic reprisal in the form of retaliatory litigation.”
“The Judge’s order provides helpful legal precedent that should allow scientists to express themselves responsibly on vital societal issues without having to be concerned with the prospect of economic reprisal in the form of retaliatory litigation.”
I think this was the right outcome. Scientists need to be transparent about their work, disclosing their methods, assumptions and reasoning. Doing so opens us up to criticism, but it also allows the field to make forward progress by building on each other's work.
The back-and-forth of peer review is a key part of the process. I've published to correct other people's work, and others have published to correct mine. Suing a research team whose work points out flaws of your work chills the entire process. Hopefully it stops here. [END]
