Dear Mr. Walker

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST

(Our Ref: FOI_09-172)

Your request for information received on 27 November 2009 for “copies of policy documents about how the vice-chancellor intends to try to restore the reputation of the university” has now been considered and the information requested is enclosed herewith. For your convenience, I have reproduced your request in the attachment to this letter and provided our response thereunder. I trust this will be to your satisfaction.

I would also add that any material released over which UEA has copyright is released subject to the understanding that you will comply with all relevant copyright rules regarding reproduction and/or transmission of the information released.

You have the right of appeal against this decision. If you wish to appeal, please set out in writing your grounds of appeal and send to me at:

University of East Anglia

Norwich

NR4 7TJ

Telephone: 0160 359 3523

E-mail: [University of East Anglia request email]

You also have a subsequent right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow, Cheshire
SK9 5AF 
Telephone:   01625 545 745
www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

David Palmer

Information Policy & Compliance Manager

University of East Anglia

Response to Freedom of Information request (FOI_09-172)

Given that the alleged scientific and financial fraud at the CRU has dragged the reputation of the UEA into the gutter and down the drain, please supply copies of policy documents about how the vice-chancellor intends to try to restore the reputation of the university.

There are no formally approved University policy documents on actions that the Vice-Chancellor intends to take in response to recent events. However, we can provide the following summary of actions we have, or intend to take.

As a starting point, the Vice-Chancellor believes that the reputation and integrity of UEA is of the upmost importance to us all, and as a result, the University wishes to have the allegations about the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to be examined fully and independently.

The University has therefore commissioned Sir Muir Russell, previous Vice-Chancellor of Glasgow University and prior to that the first permanent secretary to the Scottish Executive, to undertake an independent review. Sir Muir is extremely experienced in public life, has an understanding of the conduct of universities and research, and is entirely independent of any association with this University and with the climate change debate. The terms of reference for the Review are:

“The Independent Review will investigate the key allegations that arose from a series of hacked e-mails from CRU. The Review will:

1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.

2. Review CRU's policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.

3. Review CRU's compliance or otherwise with the University's policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (`the FOIA') and the Environmental Information Regulations (`the EIR') for the release of data.

4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.

Sir Muir will have the discretion to amend or add to the terms of reference if he feels necessary, devise his own methods of working, and call on appropriate expertise in order to investigate the allegations fully.

The University has asked for the Review to be completed by Spring 2010 and this will be made public along with UEA's response.”

The University is committed to academic transparency and accountability. CRU's research outcomes have been published in peer-reviewed journals of the highest standing. All adjustments to data where this has been necessary (for example to account for the move of a meteorological station) have been explained. CRU has undertaken, with the good offices of the Met Office, to seek permission from the various national meteorological services which have provided the original station data to publish it. This is not a simple undertaking as some 150 meteorological services were involved in the collection of the original data, and some see the data as having economic value or are otherwise sensitive to its release. It should be noted that over 95% of the data has for some years been in the public domain, such as on the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) within the NOAA site

None of the adjusted station data referred to in the emails that have been published has been destroyed.

When we receive Sir Muir's findings, we will understand which if any of the allegations stand and which fall and we will act accordingly. We will publish the findings and the University's response.

I hope that this response is helpful to you and will give you full confidence that this episode is being treated very seriously by the University, and that our response is both considered and appropriate.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php

2