Widespread concerns were raised by University of Virginia's faculty and numerous scientists and science organizations that Cuccinelli's actions posed a threat to academic freedom, and would have a chilling effect on research in the state.
[1] While an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Michael E. Mann co-authored with Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes two reconstructions of the past temperatures in the northern hemisphere: MBH98 and MBH99.
[3] The following month he filed suit seeking to overturn a finding of the United States Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
[citation needed] The CID referred to an investigation by the Attorney General into "possible violations" by Mann of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA).
Cuccinelli said, "In light of the Climategate e-mails, there does seem to at least be an argument to be made that a course was undertaken by some of the individuals involved, including potentially Michael Mann, where they were steering a course to reach a conclusion".
They demanded that he "cease and desist from this and further 'witch hunts' driven by partisan political agendas that waste valuable state resources in a difficult economy.
"[7] More than 800 state university and college faculty members signed a petition organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which said in a statement: "Much of Virginia's scientific and academic community is appalled that their attorney general has launched such a blatantly political investigation."
"[11] A statement by the directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science said that "scientists should not be subjected to fraud investigations simply for providing scientific results that may be controversial or inconvenient" and that investigations such as those Cuccinelli has initiated against Mann "could have a long-lasting and chilling effect on a broad spectrum of research fields that are critical to a range of national interests from public health to national security to the environment.
"[12] The science journal Nature published an editorial describing the investigation as "an ideologically motivated inquisition that harasses and intimidates climate scientists".
"[15] In a subsequent editorial the newspaper applauded U.Va's decision to resist the demand and highlighted the potential cost of the precedent being set by Cuccinelli, noting that "if researchers at state institutions are unwilling to stick their necks out in case a state official dislikes their findings, scientific progress at the commonwealth's universities will screech to a halt, talented faculty will leave, and the best and brightest students will go elsewhere.
"[24] It noted that four of the grants queried by Cuccinelli were received from the federal government and were therefore not covered by the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, while the fifth was awarded before the statute was enacted in 2003.
"[25] The presiding judge, Cheryl V. Higgins, agreed to stay Cuccinelli's demand pending further oral hearings due to take place in late August.
[26] On August 20, 2010, Albemarle Circuit Court Judge Paul Peatross heard argument on when Cuccinelli should get the requested data, including emails between Mann and his research assistants, secretaries and 39 other scientists across the country.
[29][30][31] Mann called the ruling a victory "for all scientists who live in fear that they may be subject to a politically-motivated witch hunt when their research findings prove inconvenient to powerful vested interests.
The University of Virginia announced that it would fight the request, and stated that resisting the Attorney General's demands had already cost it $350,000 in legal fees, paid from private funds.
The Union of Concerned Scientists applauded the reconfirmation that the demands lacked legal standing, and said that "Academic institutions have the responsibility to protect their faculty's ability to discover new things about our world without fearing harassment.
The Attorney General's office put out a statement that "From the beginning, we have said that we were simply trying to review documents that are unquestionably state property to determine whether or not fraud had been committed.