9 hours ago
The attorneys general requested a response by March 2, addressing key questions such as, “Why did the National Academies include a chapter on climate science that is not based on balanced or sound science?” and “What procedures will the National Academies establish to prevent similar advocacy-based chapters in future editions?” Since then, Ars has contacted both the NAS and the Montana attorney general’s office (which published the letter) to determine whether a response was provided.
Yesterday, it was confirmed that the response had been issued two days before the deadline (see the final page of this PDF). In just two sentences, the NAS stated it used the same procedures to develop the climate chapter as for every other chapter—procedures developed jointly with the Federal Judicial Center. The response concludes, “The manual, including the chapter on climate science, will continue to be available on the Academy’s website.”
This response leaves no clear next step for the attorneys general. Their letter noted that the NAS relies heavily on federal government funding to prepare its expert reports, and producing reports that displease Republicans could be risky; however, the attorneys general have no direct influence over that funding.
Meanwhile, the political interference with the report prompted a second response from many authors of other chapters in the Reference Manual. They published an open letter condemning the political interference. Besides emphasizing the value of the Reference Manual and the rigorous peer review process all chapters undergo, the authors highlighted the risks posed by the attorneys general’s actions:
“If political actors can determine which fields of established science are disfavored and off-limits to judicial education, every scientific discipline relevant to complex litigation becomes vulnerable to the same tactic. The integrity of the process by which judges evaluate scientific evidence should not be subject to political interference or veto.”
The authors warn of a long-term danger: if chapters continue to be removed whenever they conflict with current political views, it will become increasingly difficult to attract top scientists and legal scholars to contribute to or review the manual. Over time, the quality of the material will decline, leaving judges less prepared to handle cases involving complex scientific evidence. Ultimately, society as a whole will suffer.
