SCU’s Principles of Engagement in Public, Academic, and Government Discourse

May 28, 2026

The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (“SCU”) is committed to the careful, transparent, and evidence-based study of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). This statement articulates SCU’s guiding principles for scientific engagement, public discourse, confidentiality, and professional conduct in the evolving field of UAP research. SCU ’s mission requires engagement with many different communities: witnesses, researchers, journalists; and members of the public, media, academic institutions, and government agencies. Inevitably, across this broad community of individuals there are those who disagree strongly with one another for legitimate reasons stemming from the many challenges faced by our emerging field, which include:

· the subject’s long history of stigmatization,

· a lack of reliable data and scientific investment,

· individuals who engage in knowingly misleading, deceptive, or unprofessional conduct,

· and poor government transparency.

As UAP research often occurs in the public view but under conditions of incomplete information and strongly differing viewpoints, SCU believes it is important that we state the principles that guide our own engagements in public, academic, and government discourse.

First, SCU welcomes civil dialogue, serious skeptical review, methodological critique, corrections, alternative hypotheses, and data challenges. Constructive criticism, when conducted professionally and in good faith, is not a threat to scientific inquiry; it is scientific inquiry. UAP cases should be examined with the same discipline expected in any evidence-based field: claims should be tied to available data, assumptions should be clearly identified, uncertainties should be acknowledged, and conclusions should be revised when new evidence or analytical techniques warrants revision. Responsible UAP analysis requires rigor, patience, humility, and a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

As a matter of policy, SCU does not assume that every unusual report is anomalous. Nor does SCU regard conventional explanations as unwelcome. Many reports submitted to the SCU are ultimately assessed as likely conventional or insufficiently documented, and some are undergoing preliminary analysis. These are not typically reported on publicly. A small number are withheld due to ongoing witness privacy concerns. That is not a failure of the process. These outcomes are a normal and expected part of responsible investigative review.

Public and Social Media Engagement

SCU recognizes that social media and other online forums can contribute meaningfully to UAP research, but they can also amplify disingenuous actors who distract from serious evidence-based discourse. Useful evidence can come from witnesses, pilots, researchers, skeptics, and the public. SCU welcomes contributions when they are made in a civil, evidence-based, and professional manner. SCU encourages participants in public discussions to distinguish between evidence, inference, speculation, opinion, and accusation.

SCU’s media policy, which was originally approved in 2019 and revised in 2025, advises that members may participate in public discussion in their personal capacities, provided they do not imply that they are speaking for SCU unless they have been authorized by the board to do so. Statements issued on behalf of SCU, or using SCU’s name, logo, letterhead, affiliation, or institutional authority, require the board’s approval. This distinction protects both individual academic freedom and the integrity of SCU’s official positions.

SCU does not generally use social media or other public forums to adjudicate private disputes, disclose confidential information, or respond to allegations made about SCU, its members, or its work. Nevertheless, in limited circumstances where the Board determines that a public response is necessary to protect SCU’s mission, reputation, legal interests, or the integrity of ongoing work, the Board may issue an official statement.

Academic Disagreement and Scientific Debate

SCU supports open professional academic disagreement. Scientific progress often occurs when researchers challenge each other’s assumptions, test methods, publish critiques, and respond to competing interpretations. This includes disagreements among SCU members, disagreements among SCU members and outside researchers, and situations where different SCU members may participate in various papers, responses, reviews, or analyses. Science itself advances from open professional disagreements and discourse.

The presence of a disagreement among researchers should not be misconstrued as personal attacks, evidence of bad faith, misconduct, or institutional failure. Honest error, differences of interpretation, methodological disagreement, and evolving conclusions are normal features of scientific work. Research misconduct, as defined in SCU’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, is a separate matter that requires more scrutiny than scientific disagreement and must be evaluated through appropriate procedures.

SCU encourages academic critique to focus on data, evidence, methodology, assumptions, citations, reproducibility, and the strength of conclusions. Criticism should be directed at claims and methods rather than people or personal motives. Likewise, authors should respond to critique in good faith, acknowledge limitations where appropriate, and correct or revise conclusions when the evidence requires it.

SCU also recognizes that not every research product is equally suited to the same publication or dissemination outlet. Some work may be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals. Other work, however, may be better suited for conference presentations, technical notes, case updates in a variety of formats, data releases, or non-public internal review. SCU will continue to encourage publication and transparency, when possible, while recognizing that some cases cannot be publicly discussed in full because of privacy, confidentiality, witness protection, or collaboration and partner constraints.

Witnesses, Confidentiality, and Unpublished Work

SCU takes seriously its responsibility to witnesses and other individuals who provide information or support our investigations in good faith. Witness identities, private communications, draft reports, unpublished research, internal deliberations, and non-public case materials may not always be disclosed publicly, although SCU supports transparency regarding methods, standards, and analytical reasoning when possible.

This can be frustrating to outside observers, but confidentiality is often necessary to protect witnesses, preserve trust, and maintain the integrity of the research process.

SCU will strive to be as transparent as possible about methods, assumptions, evidence, and conclusions when publication is appropriate. However, transparency does not require the release of private communications, witness identities, unpublished materials, or information governed by agreements with collaborators or partner organizations.

Engagement with Government Agencies

SCU may engage with local, state, or federal government agencies by serving as an independent scientific resource or advisor. Such engagement may include case analysis, scientific advice, technical review, education, or discussion of research methods and standards. Serving as an independent scientific advisor means just that: SCU does not act on behalf of any government agency, accept government conclusions uncritically, or compromise its independence.

SCU’s goal in government engagement is the same as in public and academic engagement: to encourage rigorous, transparent, evidence-based analysis. SCU supports open, appropriate public release of data, clear methodology, and accountability in UAP-related work. SCU’s mission is to support unclassified, open, publicly-shared research, and we actively seek collaborations that facilitate this. At the same time, SCU recognizes that government agencies may operate under legal, national security, privacy, or classification constraints that will sometimes affect elements of what participating SCU members publicly release.

Conduct and Complaints

SCU expects its members and affiliates to conduct themselves professionally in public, academic, digital, media, and collaborative settings. Personal attacks, harassment, hostile conduct, and knowingly false or misleading representations are inconsistent with SCU’s values.

When concerns arise about possible violations of SCU’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, SCU will address those concerns through its established policies and procedures. Those procedures are intended to protect basic procedural fairness, confidentiality, and discretion. SCU will not adjudicate individual ethics complaints through public debate, social media exchanges, or informal online commentary.

This distinction is important. Public criticism of research is part of science. Allegations of misconduct or unethical behavior require care, factual specificity, and appropriate process.

SCU’s Principles of Engagement

SCU’s approach to public, academic, and government discourse is grounded in the following principles:

Evidence before conclusion. Claims should be tied to available evidence, and conclusions should reflect the strength and limitations of that evidence.
Transparency where possible. SCU supports transparency in methods, assumptions, data, authorship, and reasoning, subject to privacy, confidentiality, legal, and research-integrity constraints.
Respectful disagreement. Disagreement is expected in scientific work. It should be conducted with professionalism and directed toward evidence, methods, and interpretation rather than at the people involved.
Independence. SCU seeks constructive engagement with public, academic, private, and government agencies while maintaining its independent scientific judgment.
Protection of witnesses and confidential information. SCU will not sacrifice witness trust or private information for the sake of online pressure or public controversy.
Correction and revision. SCU will revise assessments, update conclusions, and correct errors, which are signs of transparency and responsible disclosure. This is responsible research methodology.
Clarity of representation. SCU members may speak in their personal capacities, but official SCU positions require authorization by the board of directors.
Professional conduct. SCU expects civil, ethical, and professional engagement from its members and encourages the same standard from others who participate in UAP discourse.

Disclaimer

This statement reflects SCU’s general principles and organizational approach to public, academic, and governmental engagement. It is intended as guidance and does not create contractual rights, procedural guarantees, or legally enforceable obligations. The SCU Board retains discretion in interpreting and applying SCU policies, ethical standards, and procedural rules consistent with SCU’s mission and governance responsibilities.

The SCU Board of Directors appreciates the public’s interest in UAP research and welcomes serious, constructive engagement. SCU will continue to pursue careful, transparent, evidence-based inquiry into cases that warrant scientific analysis, while maintaining the independence, professionalism, and ethical standards necessary for that work.