Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

• DATE: Established 1980

Mission

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) figures in the debate on mostly because of controversial mailings sent out in 1998 and 2007, and its sponsorship of the Petition Project or Oregon Petition, a petition by scientists opposed to the idea of global warming that as of January, 2009, reported that it had more than thirty-one thousand signers. OISM is a small, nonprofit private institution in Cave Junction, Oregon, a small community of about two thousand residents in southwestern Oregon. The Institute was founded in 1980 and as of 2024 had six faculty (though it does not teach classes) as well as a number of volunteers. Most of its stated research efforts involve research on medical subjects, but it also lists as research interests “improvement in precollege education curricula, especially in the sciences; and improved civilian emergency preparedness.” In the climate debate it is prominent as sponsor of the Oregon Petition and distributor of papers rejecting the idea of global warming. The late, eminent scientist Frederick Seitz served as spokesperson for some of these efforts.

Significance for Climate Change

In 1998, the OISM first attracted widespread attention among climate researchers by distributing a mass mailing of a paper casting doubt on global warming. The paper was accompanied by a letter signed by Seitz, who had an illustrious career in solid state physics at the University of Illinois and Rockefeller University that included chairing the United States National Academy of Sciences from 1962 to 1969 and receiving the National Medal of Science in 1973. In 1979, Seitz became a paid consultant to the tobacco industry and led its scientific research program to discredit the evidence linking smoking to cancer and other illnesses. After his connections with the tobacco industry ended, Seitz became a critic of various environmental causes, including climate change.

The article mailed by the OISM looked like a genuine article reprinted by a scientific journal. In fact, the article almost exactly duplicated the format of the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences. The academy took the unusual step of issuing a public statement disclaiming any connection between itself and the paper, and many scientists expressed anger that Seitz had used his former connections to the academy to promote a paper that seemed purposely designed to resemble an academy publication. Seitz later claimed to have urged the authors of the paper to submit it for peer review.

In 2007, the OISM sent out another mass-mailed paper, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon, which had been published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is published online by a politically conservative medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. The journal specializes in articles critical of government healthcare regulations, but it also frequently publishes nonmedical articles appealing to political conservatives. The paper by Robinson, Robinson, and Soon included much of the material from the 1998 paper and was also accompanied by a letter from Seitz.

The other major effort by the OISM to influence the climate debate is the Petition Project or Oregon Petition. The petition reads in part:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

The Petition Project provides lists of and data on their academic credentials. As of 2020, the Petition Project claimed:

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD [medical] and DVM [veterinary]; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

One significant problem with the Oregon Petition is that it does not list the institutional affiliations of signers. It also does not verify their credentials. The words “credential” and “credibility” both come from the same Latin word meaning “believe.” Credentials are evidence that someone is credible when talking about a subject. A patient may not have the technical training to understand or identify a medical problem, but a doctor’s credentials are a strong indication that the doctor’s opinion is credible. The doctor may also be well informed about many other nonmedical subjects (like climate change), but without credentials in those areas, there is no evidence one way or the other to judge his or her credibility.

Only 29 percent of the signers of the Oregon Petition have doctoral degrees in science, whereas 41 percent have only a bachelor’s degree. A breakdown by specialty claimed 3,697 signers were scientists in the Earth, atmospheric, and environmental sciences, including 578 atmospheric scientists. Only 12 percent of the signers have degrees in Earth, atmospheric, and environmental science, and fewer than 2 percent are atmospheric scientists. The Oregon Petition website claims:

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement.

Most of the signers, however, are in fields that have no real bearing on climate change, and most do not have the level of training needed to evaluate the research on climate change. They may be perfectly qualified in their own specialties, but they do not have credentials, or credibility, in climate research.

Although there are many uncertainties in predicting future climate changes and in formulating policy on climate change, campaigns such as the Oregon Petition and the Seitz mailings damage, rather than advance, the skeptic cause. Real experts on climate change are not persuaded by the Oregon Petition or the OISM mailings. The use of deceptive mailings and irrelevant credentials may persuade people without expertise in science, but those tactics serve only to erode the credibility of skeptics in the eyes of scientists.

Bibliography

Dessler, Andrew E., and Edward A. Parson. The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Michaels, David. Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Pearce, Fred. With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007.

Pittock, A. Barrie. Climate Change: Turning Up the Heat. Sterling, Va.: Earthscan, 2005.

Robinson, Arthur B., Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon. “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12, no. 3 (Fall, 2007).

"The Tricks Employed in the Flawed OISM Petition Project to Cast Doubt on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." Skeptical Science, 12 Aug. 2023, skepticalscience.com/oism-petition-project.htm. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.