Is The Institute of Physics Fascist?

[Questioning_Climate]

Here is a good article by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley titled "The Institute of Physics: where academic freedom comes second to science Fascism".

http://tiny.cc/98348

Sadly, this is just the tip of another iceberg. For example, the IOP sent out this press release, timed for COP last December:

Quote:Physicists' message to world leaders in Copenhagen

Institute of Physics Press Release PR64 (09)

Mon, 7 December 2009

http://www.iop.org/News/Community_News_A..._38336.pdf

Whilst the IOP is probably not as biased as some institutions, there is strong support for AGW and its spin-off agendas by the usual ilk. This is particularly evident within the forums but what's new?

Anyway, I had intended a post on the following late last year, but didn't find the time. As this topic is related to the IOP it seems a good idea to include it here. It fits rather well with some of the comment from Monckton.


How many, if any, of those related to Climategate are members of the IOP? If there are any, did they read this:

CODES AND RULES OF CONDUCT

Quote:10.1.1 Honesty
Members must not fabricate, falsify or misrepresent data or results. They
should strive to be objective, unbiased and truthful in all aspects of their work...

Members have a duty, where they believe they have a professional or personal conflict of interest that may impair their ability to make objective judgements, to disclose such interests to the relevant authorities and to avoid making or influencing decisions that involve this conflict. Examples of conflicts of interest may include refereeing grant proposals when doing similar work and reviewing the work of collaborators.

Members must be honest when applying for grants, other funding and project
approval. Making inflated claims for a project interferes with the objective
evaluation of applications and can lead to an unfair and wasteful distribution of resources.

10.1.2 Care

They should critically assess the likelihood of experimental,
methodological and human errors and avoid self-deception and bias.

Members have a responsibility to record the source material of their
experiments in an auditable manner for the purposes of scrutiny and
verification.

10.2.5 Members shall not recklessly or maliciously injure, or attempt to injure, directly or indirectly, the reputation, prospects or business of others.

Maybe this is the over-riding clause? The one that gives AGW immunity from all 'normal' mis-conduct:

Quote:10.2.4 Members shall have due regard for the environment and the sustainability of resources.

Okay, maybe that comment is a bit unfair because this was probably included innocently even if other clauses almost certainly covered the point implicitly.

There is also:
10.1.4 Guidance on Whistle Blowing

Quote:In order for unethical behaviour in science to be uncovered it is important for
those who believe they have witnessed misconduct to feel able to report it to the appropriate authorities. However, physicists who wish to bring to light
unethical conduct may risk harming their own careers. The following guidelines should be observed before proceeding:

the motivation for reporting misconduct should not be for personal advance nor to impede a rival;

well-documented evidence is necessary before making accusations. Evidence
should be more than hearsay or a personal observation;

accusations should be made to the relevant authorities and should only go
outside the local authorities as a last resort;

and careful deliberation should take place before any action is taken. There should be no rush to judgement.

No comment on this:

Quote:10.2.8 Members shall not bring the Institute into disrepute.

There are likely more interesting items and anyone wishing to research further can find the document here:

http://www.iop.org/aboutus/Royal_Charter/file_27809.pdf


No doubt most institutions have similar rules.

[Sunsettommy]

I suspect that all major institutes of science has a set of Rules of Codes and Conduct guiding them.

The enforcement part is the one that needs support to make them meaningful,otherwise they will go down in quality and reliability as a group.

[Questioning_Climate]

True. However, what enforcement can be done? Those flouting the rules do not care about the Institute or true science. To them it is just a convenient tool. Use it, discard it. What have they got to lose?