I'm not arguing that the IARC made the right scientific call on this monograph, and in fact I think they are likely to be wrong since so many other organizations disagree. However, I think it's absolutely essential to protect the private deliberations in science.
What should be open is the final reasoning, the results and data that go into a conclusion. But the process of getting there should allow people to make all sorts of mistakes until they get it right, without facing undue scrutiny during that process.
There are far too many biased groups that will take any indication of a simple arithmetic error that gets corrected as a sign of corruption or manipulation.
In mathematics, a proof shows all the work, but you don't have to show all your failed attempts until you get to a proof. I don't think that these scientists should be treated differently.
What should be open is the final reasoning, the results and data that go into a conclusion. But the process of getting there should allow people to make all sorts of mistakes until they get it right, without facing undue scrutiny during that process.
There are far too many biased groups that will take any indication of a simple arithmetic error that gets corrected as a sign of corruption or manipulation.
In mathematics, a proof shows all the work, but you don't have to show all your failed attempts until you get to a proof. I don't think that these scientists should be treated differently.