Bjørn Lomborg Comments on the Ruling From the DCSD

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, 7 January 2003

In the beginning of last year several complaints regarding my book The Skeptical Environmentalist were submitted to the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (the DCSD). Since then, I have, naturally, been looking forward to being cleared of the charges of scientific dishonesty. Throughout the procedure I have submitted my comments on many of the plaintiffs’ accusations.

Unfortunately, the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty has made their decision without taking a position to the content of the complaints. The DCSD has ruled that “it is not DCSD’s remit to decide who is right in a contentious professional issue.” I find this ruling inexplicable and it means that there is still no ruling about the numerous complaints put forth in public. I maintain that the complaints of the plaintiffs are unfounded.

The main conclusion by DCSD finds that my book is “clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice” because of systematically biased selection of data and arguments. But since the DCSD has neglected to take their position on the technical scientific disputes, their conclusions are completely unfounded. The DCSD does not give a single example to demonstrate their claim of a biased choice of data and arguments. I don’t understand this ruling: it equals an accusation without defining the crime.

The DCSD, however, refers to the criticism of my book put forth by four scientists in Scientific American. This is a one-year-old discussion, which I participated in at that time, by writing a 34-page response (www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ScientificAmericanBjørnLomborgAnswer.pdf). In spite of the fact that the DCSD received a copy of my response, they refer to none of my arguments. In fact, the only thing that the DCSD does is to repeat the Scientific American arguments over six pages, while only allowing my arguments 1½ lines. This seems to reflect an extremely biased procedure. On top of that, the DCSD has failed to evaluate the scientific points in dispute outlined in Scientific American article.

My initial response when I read the conclusion of the DCSD was one of surprise and discomfort. When reading through the complete ruling I found it to be:

• Inexplicable in its negligence to take a position on the complaints of the plaintiffs;
• Undocumented by ruling the book to be systematically biased without documenting this with a single example;
• Biased by its reference to only one side of the comprehensive discussion concerning my book (the plaintiffs’ side).