Something's (no longer) rotten in Denmark

COPENHAGEN -- Bjorn Lomborg has been made an honest man again. At the beginning of the year, the Danish statistician's best-seller, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," was declared "contrary to the standards of good scientific practice," by the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty. This week the Ministry of Science told the committee to take a hike.

In clearing Mr. Lomborg of those allegations, the Danish government was in essence saying that it had no proof that his allegations were wrong. In his book, Mr. Lomborg argued that much of the environmental doom and gloom purported by environmental pressure groups and politicians, and repeatedly mindlessly by journalists, was in fact wildly exaggerated or even just plain wrong. For some environmentalists, criticism is treason. Earlier this year, many environmentalists and even some leading scientific magazines joined up in an anti-Lomborg crusade.

The committee's decision was the best known. It was odd that it became involved in the first place, however. Normally, this committee deals with cases of academic fraud, where Ph.D. dissertations are plagiarized or researchers have tampered with the results of scientific experiments. In other words, cases where dishonesty, intent or gross negligence is easy to establish.

In February, Mr. Lomborg lodged two formal complaints concerning the committee's decision with the Ministry of Science. This week, the ministry finally gave its verdict.

The ministry was strongly critical, concluding that the committee provided "no documentation" and "lacks any arguments" that support the allegations of dishonesty and bad scientific practice on Mr. Lomborg's part. The ministry additionally lists a number of significant errors by the committee, several of which are considered so grave by its lawyers that each individual point is sufficient to make the committee's decision invalid.

The truth is that the committee's decision was a scandalous abuse of authority, and the environmentalists knew it all along. In Denmark, hundreds of university academics signed a petition denouncing the decision. But still environmentalists continued to cite the committee ruling to promote the argument that not only Mr. Lomborg -- but in fact his entire line of argument -- was unscientific.

In the environmental debate, this sort of tactic is constantly used to attempt to silence people who happen to disagree with "doom and gloom" scenarios. If one happens to be skeptical of the science of global warming, for instance, that person is accused of selling his soul to the oil industry. Rarely do environmentalists debate the actual issues; instead, they attack personal integrity or claim that one is not competent to take part in the debate. Fundamentally, the only reason Mr. Lomborg is seen as controversial is that very few scientists dare to challenge the conventional wisdom and misinformation promoted by environmentalists.

The committee decision was a good case in point. According to the ministry, the choice of language in the ruling "does not meet the linguistic standards of good administrative practice." The ministry writes that the committee "should be able to refer to the content of a criticism without using condescending or emotional language." To bolster its decision, the committee utilized personal attacks on Mr. Lomborg in the popular press -- attacks that had no relevance to the core issue of scientific dishonesty. The most outrageous was a quote from Time Magazine: "Bjorn Lomborg laughs all the way to the bank" -- as if making money was somehow dishonest.

Similarly, the attitudes of environmental activists and their supporters in the scientific community are extremely emotional and aggressive, a truly nasty experience for those scientists who have the "wrong" -- that is, different -- views on issues of environmental science and public policy. Sadly, many have withdrawn from the public debate on issues such as global warming, sustainable development, and the use of pesticides, fertilizers and genetic modification in sustainable agriculture.

No longer is something rotten in the state of Denmark, at least in our desire to promote honest scientific debate. The committee attempted to undermine and silence a colleague with whom they disagreed politically, and ideas that they despise. The final decision by the Danish Ministry of Science has showed that this inquisition against Mr. Lomborg was a disgraceful attack on science and free speech. Hopefully it will encourage more vigorous scientific jousting about the important issues that face humanity and our planet.

Mr. Agerup is president of the Danish Academy for Futures Studies, and a fellow of the International Policy Network in London.