Experts from various fields raised concerns on Monday regarding the recent removal of a climate science chapter from a key reference guide for judges handling complex scientific evidence.
For over three decades, federal judges have relied on the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence to interpret intricate scientific matters in court. This manual, originally published by the Federal Judicial Center (established by Congress in 1994), is now co-published with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
On January 29, a group of 27 Republican attorneys general requested the Federal Judicial Center to withdraw the climate science chapter from the manual’s fourth edition, citing bias and methodological issues.
West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCuskey emphasized the need for the manual’s accuracy and impartiality, criticizing the chapter for its connection to university climate programs allegedly promoting political agendas against states and energy producers.
Eight days later, the center notified the attorneys general of the chapter’s removal from the manual’s latest edition. However, the chapter remains on the National Academies’ website.
Contributors to the manual, now exceeding 1,600 pages, expressed outrage over the political intervention in scientific content, highlighted in an open letter by 28 authors published in Science Politics, a platform affiliated with Georgetown University.
The manual, cited over 1,300 times by judges, serves as a crucial educational tool, the authors noted. The attorneys general’s actions threaten the integrity of scientifically prepared publications.
Brenda Eskenazi, a co-author of the epidemiology chapter and environmental health expert at the University of California, Berkeley, remarked on the extensive peer review each chapter undergoes, criticizing political interference in scientific discourse.
The Federal Judicial Center declined to comment on the chapter’s removal. Hank Greely, a Stanford University bioethicist, condemned the exclusion as an example of partisan denial of climate change reality, praising the National Academies for retaining the chapter.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board criticized the decision to maintain the chapter, aligning with the attorneys general’s support for energy producers.
Democratic lawmakers urged the Federal Judicial Center to restore the chapter, denouncing its removal under political pressure.
Chapter authors Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton addressed the Republican attorneys general’s claims in a response, defending the scientific findings as consistent with reports from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Experts emphasized that the absence of the chapter deprives judges of a vital tool for evaluating scientific evidence in court, potentially affecting all scientific disciplines involved in litigation.
Greely underscored the importance of having access to the National Academies’ version of the manual, warning against politicizing scientific education. Eskenazi highlighted the thorough vetting process for such scientific resources, stressing the inappropriate role of politicians in scientific assessments.
Original Story at insideclimatenews.org