
-
Indian army says new exchange of gunfire with Pakistan
-
Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre takes own life in Australia: family
-
Hundreds of buildings damaged, dozens injured in 6.3 Ecuador quake
-
India and Pakistan's Kashmir fallout hits economy too
-
Francis's funeral to be grand farewell to 'pope of the poor'
-
Pogacar faces defiant Evenepoel at Liege-Bastogne-Liege
-
Chelsea eye great escape against Barcelona in Women's Champions League
-
Iran, US to hold new round of high-level nuclear talks
-
'Energy and effort' pay off for Reds as Blues' woes continue
-
Albatross and closing birdie lift China's Liu to LPGA Chevron lead
-
On the horizon? Wave of momentum for high seas treaty
-
Developing countries should fast-track US trade deals: World Bank president
-
Grizzlies' Morant 'doubtful' for must-win game 4 v Thunder
-
Trump in Rome for pope funeral in first foreign trip of new term
-
Trump says Russia-Ukraine deal 'very close' after new Kremlin talks
-
US rookies lead PGA pairs event with McIlroy and Lowry in hunt
-
Trump tariff promises get a reality check
-
Warriors coach Kerr 'relatively optimistic' injured Butler will play game 3
-
Postecoglou hopes 'Stonecutter's Credo' can inspire Spurs
-
PSG lose unbeaten Ligue 1 record ahead of Arsenal showdown
-
Venezuela accuses El Salvador president of 'human trafficking'
-
Own goal takes Sundowns to African final against Pyramids
-
Scores of buildings damaged, 20 injured in Ecuador quake
-
US stocks extend rally as market eyes busy calendar next week
-
Pope's death triggers surge of disinformation he fought against
-
Rovanpera takes control of Rally Islas Canarias
-
Zelensky insists Crimea is Ukrainian as US envoy meets Putin
-
Patel and Mendis help Sunrisers beat Kings in Dhoni's 400th T20
-
Copa del Rey ref statements 'unacceptable': Real Madrid after boycotting final build-up
-
Insurance CEO's accused killer pleads not guilty to federal murder charges
-
FBI arrests Wisconsin judge for shielding undocumented migrant
-
Brazil ex-president Collor de Mello jailed for corruption
-
Zelensky insists Crimea 'belongs' to Ukraine as US envoy meets Putin
-
Real Madrid boycott Copa del Rey build-up over referee complaints
-
Trinidad and Tobago votes for parliament, PM, with opposition in lead
-
IMF chief hails 'constructive' Spring Meetings held under tariff uncertainty
-
Iran FM Araghchi in Oman ahead of nuclear talks with US
-
Dozens of buildings destroyed, 20 injured in Ecuador quake
-
Young Barca must 'enjoy' Real Madrid Copa final fight: Flick
-
Pakistan and India border closure separates families
-
Brazil's Bolsonaro 'stable' after post-surgery setback
-
Catholics in secular Cuba hail Francis as 'bridge'
-
US envoy Witkoff, Putin discuss 'possibility' of direct Russia-Ukraine talks
-
Community seeks answers after French school knife killing
-
German prosecutors seek jail terms in VW 'dieselgate' trial
-
Sabalenka makes winning start at Madrid Open
-
EU, US should de-escalate and negotiate trade deal: IMF Europe director
-
Russia accuses Ukraine of killing general in car bombing
-
Emery wants FA Cup glory and Champions League berth for Villa
-
Buildings destroyed, one injured in Ecuador quake

Scientist shocks peers by 'tailoring' climate study
In a controversial bid to expose supposed bias in a top journal, a US climate expert shocked fellow scientists by revealing he tailored a wildfire study to emphasise global warming.
While supporters applauded Patrick T. Brown for flagging what he called a one-sided climate "narrative" in academic publishing, his move surprised at least one of his co-authors -- and angered the editors of leading journal Nature.
"I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published," read the headline to an article signed by Brown in the news site The Free Press on September 5.
He said he deliberately focused on the impact from higher temperatures on wildfire risk in a study in the journal, excluding other factors such as land management.
AFP covered the study in an article on August 30 headlined: "Climate change boosts risk of extreme wildfires 25%".
"I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like," the article read. "That's not the way science should work."
- Co-author surprised -
One of the named co-authors of the study, Steven J. Davis, a professor in the earth system science department at the University of California, Irvine, told AFP Brown's comments took him "by surprise".
"Patrick may have made decisions that he thought would help the paper be published, but we don't know whether a different paper would have been rejected," he said in an email.
"I don't think he has much evidence to support his strong claims that editors and reviewers are biased."
Brown is co-director of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute, a private non-profit group that researches technological responses to environmental issues, including boosting nuclear energy.
He did not respond to an AFP request to comment following his September 5 revelation but wrote about it in detail on his blog and on X, formerly known as Twitter.
- Ethical questions -
A number of tweets applauded Brown for his "bravery", "openness" and "transparency". Others said his move raised ethical questions.
His presentation of the research in the study "is a choice, but to boast about it publicly is next level", tweeted David Ho, a climate scientist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks cases of academic papers being withdrawn, said Brown's move "ends up feeling like a sting operation... of questionable ethics".
"Do scientists clean up the narrative to have a stronger story? Absolutely. Do scientists need to publish in order to keep their jobs? Absolutely," Oransky told AFP.
"It's just that he got there by a remarkably flawed logic experiment that of course is convincing all of the people who are already convinced that scientists are not rigorous and honest about climate change in particular."
- Nature brands move 'irresponsible' -
Nature's editor in chief Magdalena Skipper dismissed Brown's actions as "irresponsible", arguing that they reflected "poor research practices".
She stressed that the key issue of other climate variables in the study was discussed during peer-review.
She pointed to three recent studies in the journal that explored factors other than climate change regarding marine heatwaves, Amazon emissions and wildfires.
"When it comes to science, Nature does not have a preferred narrative," she said in a statement.
Brown tweeted in response: "As someone who has been reading the Nature journal family, submitting to it, reviewing for it, and publishing in it, I think that is nonsense."
- 'Publish or perish' -
Scientists often complain of the pressure on young researchers to "publish or perish", with research grants and tenure hanging on decisions by editors of science journals.
"Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted," Brown wrote. "I know this because I am one of them."
In publishing, "it is easy to understand how journal reviewers and editors may worry about how a complex subject, particularly one that is politically fraught, will be received by the public," said Brian Nosek, a psychologist and co-founder of the Center for Open Science, a US body that promotes transparency in scholarship.
"But science is at its best when it leans into that complexity and does not let oversimplified, ideological narratives drive how the evidence is gathered and reported," he added.
"It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that Patrick felt like he had to be a willing participant in oversimplifying his work to have a career in science. In that long run, that is not a service to him, the field, or humanity."
L.Harper--AMWN