RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University February 3, 2010 RA-10 Inquiry Committee for the Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann: Henry C. Foley, Ph.D. Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School Alan W. Scaroni, Ph.D. Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Ms. Candice A. Yekel, M.S., CIM, Director, Office for Research Protections Research Integrity Officer Beginning on and about November 22, 2009, The Pennsylvania State University began to receive numerous communications (emails, phone calls and letters) accusing Dr. Michael E. Mann of having engaged in acts that included manipulating data, destroying records and colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming from approximately 1998. These accusations were based on perceptions of the content of the widely reported theft of emails from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. Given the sheer volume of the communications to Penn State, the similarity of their content and their sources, which included University alumni, federal and state politicians, and others, many of whom had had no relationship with Penn State, it was concluded that the matter required examination by the cognizant University official, namely Dr. Eva J. Pell, then Senior Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School. The reason for having Dr. Pell examine the matter was that the accusations, when placed in an academic context, could be construed as allegations of research misconduct, which would constitute a violation of Penn State policy. Under The Pennsylvania State University’s policy, Research Administration Policy No. 10, (hereafter referred to as RA-10), Research Misconduct is defined as: (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities; (2) callous disregard for requirements that ensure the protection of researchers, human participants, or the public; or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals;RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010 (3) failure to disclose significant financial and business interest as defined by Penn State Policy RA20, Individual Conflict of Interest; (4) failure to comply with other applicable legal requirements governing research or other scholarly activities. RA-10 further provides that “research misconduct does not include disputes regarding honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data, and is not intended to resolve bona fide scientific disagreement or debate.” On November 24, 2009, Dr. Pell decided that the matter should be examined by the process articulated in RA-10. Dr. Pell then took the first steps in implementing the RA-10 review by initiating a meeting with the Dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (Dr. William Easterling), the Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research from the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (Dr. Alan Scaroni), the Director of the Office for Research Protections, (Ms. Candice Yekel) and the Head of the Department of Meteorology (Dr. William Brune). At this meeting, all were informed of the situation and of the decision to respond to the matter with an inquiry under RA-10. Dr. Pell then discussed the responsibilities that each individual would be expected to have according to policy. At this time, Dean Easterling recused himself from the inquiry for personal reasons. As the next administrator in the line of management for the college, Dr. Alan Scaroni was asked to take on Dean Easterling’s function in the ensuing inquiry. Therefore, the committee assigned to conduct the inquiry into the matter consisted of Dr. Pell in her role as Senior Vice President for Research, Ms. Candice Yekel in her role as the Director of the Office for Research Protections and Dr. Scaroni in his role as the Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research from the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. Dr. William Brune, in his role as the Head of the Department of Meteorology, was to serve in a consulting capacity for the committee. Dr. Henry C. Foley, then Dean of the College of Information Sciences and Technology, was added to the inquiry committee in an ex-officio role for the duration of 2009, since he had been named to succeed Dr. Pell as the next Vice President for Research, beginning January 1, 2010. At the time of initiation of the inquiry, and in the ensuing days during the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official. As a result, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell and from these she synthesized the following four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put forth, or leveled against Dr. Mann, but rather were her best effort to reduce to allegation form the many different accusations that were received from parties outside of the University. The four synthesized allegations were as follows: 1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data? 2 | PageRA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010 2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones? 3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar? 4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities? On November 29, 2009, Dr. Pell and Dr. Foley met with Dr. Mann to let him know personally that he was accused of research misconduct and that an inquiry under RA-10 would take place. On November 30, 2010, a letter was delivered by Dr. Pell to Dr. Mann to notify him formally of