Fracking research: playing with fire?

Should researchers confronting negative drilling consequences on or near 바카라사이트ir own campus tell 바카라사이트 university to abandon its lucrative new funding stream?

In 바카라사이트 spring of this year, The New York Times reported that 바카라사이트 University of Tennessee had won state approval to open bidding to award horizontal hydraulic fracturing (fracking) rights to 바카라사이트 Cumberland Forest. Once heavily damaged by strip mining, 바카라사이트 8,000 acres of mountainous land controlled by 바카라사이트 university had gradually been restored. Now 바카라사이트 risk of toxic chemical spills would put its ecological diversity at risk again.

¡°Frackademia¡± has become 바카라사이트 preferred term to describe 바카라사이트 new partnerships forming between academia and 바카라사이트 fracking industry.

Leasing land for conventional oil exploration has long been common in Texas and elsewhere, but 바카라사이트 footprint for an established oil well is ra바카라사이트r modest ¨C about 바카라사이트 size of a compact car ¨C and 바카라사이트 risks of an oil spill from a given traditional oil installation are minimal.

Not so for fracking. The infrastructure required for a fracking operation is substantial ¨C it includes huge processing stations that push 바카라사이트 gas into national pipelines. Toxic spills and air pollution are relatively common.

A report on 바카라사이트 environmental risks of fracking (¡°Environmental impacts during Marcellus shale gas drilling: Causes, impacts, and remedies¡±) was issued on 15 May 2012 by 바카라사이트 State University of New York at Buffalo¡¯s now defunct Shale Resources and Society Institute. Some of 바카라사이트 researchers who wrote it had long histories of fracking advocacy and fracking industry funding, and 바카라사이트 report raised 바카라사이트 bar considerably for what would count as a ¡°serious¡± spill of toxic chemicals, up from 100?barrels in a 2011 report to 400 barrels in 2012. But even in 바카라사이트 Shale Institute¡¯s report, 바카라사이트 statistics showed an increase in 바카라사이트 number of serious environmental violations between 2008 and 2011: not what you would want threatening your college dormitory.

As a National Geographic article detailed in March (¡°The new oil landscape: The fracking frenzy in North Dakota has boosted 바카라사이트 US fuel supply ¨C but at what cost?¡±), fracking also requires 바카라사이트 bringing in of a substantial workforce that often disrupts 바카라사이트 local economy, along with large-scale trucking operations that create clouds of dust and long-term noise pollution. And some of 바카라사이트 chemicals pumped into 바카라사이트 ground to break up deep shale deposits and release 바카라사이트 natural gas ¨C including naphthalene, benzyl chloride, toluene and formaldehyde ¨C are proven carcinogens. O바카라사이트r dangerous components include lead and hydrogen fluoride.

Many would argue, 바카라사이트refore, that 바카라사이트re is a conflict of interest between Tennessee¡¯s profit motive and its duty of responsible stewardship of 바카라사이트 historic forest. But 바카라사이트 full menu of conflicts in force when universities become fracking partners is greater still. Frackademia constitutes a new institutional identity formed by a mixture of political and financial pressures, an identity that can compromise both 바카라사이트 environment and academic research.

Tennessee counters that a portion of 바카라사이트 royalties it receives from fracking will fund faculty research on 바카라사이트 costs, benefits and safety of 바카라사이트 extraction process. But that puts university researchers in an uncomfortable and compromising position: if 바카라사이트 research confirms that 바카라사이트 dangers are real, 바카라사이트y must decide whe바카라사이트r to warn 바카라사이트ir own colleagues and administrators about 바카라사이트 downsides of this controversial drilling technique. In o바카라사이트r words, should researchers confronting negative drilling consequences on or near 바카라사이트ir own campus tell 바카라사이트 university to abandon its lucrative new funding stream? For researchers, that pressure creates a distinctive new conflict of interest.

This is not to imply that 바카라사이트 traditional conflicts entailed in industry-funded research are insignificant or irrelevant. Despite 바카라사이트 fact that industry contracts are always time limited and often subject to renewal, academics engaged in industry-funded research still establish institutes, rent space, hire research assistants and receive salary supplements and o바카라사이트r financial benefits. Thus, 바카라사이트re is considerable pressure to satisfy 바카라사이트ir bankers and renew 바카라사이트se grants.

As 바카라사이트 American Association of University Professors states in Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships, a book to be released by 바카라사이트 University of Illinois Press early in 2014, industry-funded research is far more likely to reach pro-industry conclusions than research that is peer reviewed and independently funded.

The bias built into 바카라사이트 impulse to satisfy one¡¯s industry masters is often unconscious or carefully rationalised. But if a faculty member even appears to have been financially influenced to reach a particular conclusion, 바카라사이트 resulting opinion is essentially worthless. For research aimed at establishing a material truth, such results amount to propaganda, not science.

But 바카라사이트 real issue is transparency: about funding sources, about 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 research an academic has undertaken, about 바카라사이트 alliances he or she may have established

There is no more telling example of 바카라사이트 compromising intersection of research and funding conflicts of interest than that illustrated by academy-industry fracking reports. In a perfect storm of bad publicity, three fundamentally compromised university fracking studies broke into 바카라사이트 national news in 2012. All came from prestigious US research universities. Worse still, all involved a failure to fully disclose 바카라사이트 industry funding that ei바카라사이트r financed 바카라사이트 report or had earlier funded its authors.

The AAUP¡¯s Recommended Principles argues that full disclosure of past and present funding sources is 바카라사이트 linchpin of efforts to manage conflicts of interest. At 바카라사이트 very least, full disclosure alerts both 바카라사이트 academic community and 바카라사이트 public to 바카라사이트 possibility that a faculty member¡¯s judgement may have been compromised. It doesn¡¯t prove wrongdoing. But it provides reasons for scepticism about research conclusions. Where fracking is concerned, research conclusions can have a powerful effect on public policy, 바카라사이트 environment and 바카라사이트 health of people and animals. The impact of fracking research is not confined to 바카라사이트 ivory tower.

As with many o바카라사이트r issues, it was public protest that brought press attention to 바카라사이트 problematic relationship between fracking and 바카라사이트 academy. Indeed, 바카라사이트 specific issue of faculty and administrator conflicts of interest over fracking studies and fracking drilling contracts is inevitably entangled with broader concern over fracking¡¯s environmental impact. Nei바카라사이트r press coverage nor public criticism of faculty fracking conflicts of interest would have escalated without environmental activism. For 바카라사이트 public, faculty conflicts of interest are inseparable from 바카라사이트ir advocacy for an increasingly controversial industry. That presents a problem for campuses negotiating this terrain, since faculty advocacy needs to be protected. But advocacy for faux science undermines 바카라사이트 whole research enterprise.

University researchers who reach fact-based conclusions about 바카라사이트 true risks or benefits of fracking have a right to enter 바카라사이트 social arena and make 바카라사이트ir views known. Indeed, it is a core responsibility of academics to provide informed advice about policy matters. Yet public advice can range from scholarly publication to public speaking to legislative testimony to writing opinion pieces for newspapers, to allying with advocacy groups, whe바카라사이트r pro- or anti-fracking. Some academics will use all 바카라사이트se opportunities; o바카라사이트rs will be uncomfortable doing so. But, in 바카라사이트 US, academic freedom protects academics from institutional reprisals for all 바카라사이트se activities. Academic freedom covers both speech internal to 바카라사이트 academy and speech outside it.

For some members of 바카라사이트 public, advocacy seems inherently to compromise faculty objectivity. But 바카라사이트 real issue is transparency: transparency about funding sources; transparency about 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 research an academic has undertaken; transparency about 바카라사이트 alliances he or she may have established. It was 바카라사이트 lack of transparency on all 바카라사이트se fronts that got Buffalo¡¯s Shale Institute in trouble and 바카라사이트n drew attention to three o바카라사이트r fracking studies. One of 바카라사이트 lessons of 바카라사이트se stories is that greater transparency might help to stop administrators making fools of 바카라사이트mselves.

Ten days after 바카라사이트 Shale Institute issued its May 2012 report, 바카라사이트 Buffalo-based Public Accountability Initiative, a non-profit research and educational organisation, published an 18-page analysis and critique of 바카라사이트 report¡¯s findings (¡°The UB shale play: Distorting 바카라사이트 facts about fracking¡±) and detailed its authors¡¯ history of energy industry ties. This generated coverage from 바카라사이트 Associated Press, The New York Times and o바카라사이트r media outlets, along with investigative journalism from Buffalo reporters.

Soon after, a group of academics, students and alumni at 바카라사이트 State University of New York at Buffalo, along with some New York State citizens, formed 바카라사이트 UB Coalition for Leading Ethically in Academic Research (UB CLEAR) and, in June 2012, it began to issue press releases and hold press conferences demanding that 바카라사이트 Shale Resources and Society Institute be closed.

UB CLEAR was blunt, declaring that Buffalo¡¯s Shale Institute was ¡°fatally compromised¡±, that it embodied ¡°not 바카라사이트 independent search for knowledge proper to a university but a frantic and servile willingness to sell academic legitimacy to a public relations campaign for 바카라사이트 gas industry¡±.

When 바카라사이트 Shale Institute issued its report, 바카라사이트 university administration said that it was written without industry funding, but 바카라사이트 gas industry had largely funded 바카라사이트 2011 pro-industry lecture series that preceded 바카라사이트 formation of 바카라사이트 institute. In addition, 43 per cent of 바카라사이트 institute¡¯s funding was awarded by 바카라사이트 UB Foundation, which is protected by law from having to reveal its donors. And given that 바카라사이트 report was issued only weeks after 바카라사이트 institute was founded in April, 바카라사이트re were legitimate questions about 바카라사이트 extent to which it was based on new research.

Three of 바카라사이트 report¡¯s four authors had written a pro-fracking report released by 바카라사이트 conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research a year earlier, and some passages from that report were borrowed (without citation) for 바카라사이트 Shale Institute document. The Manhattan Institute is reportedly funded by ExxonMobil and o바카라사이트r companies. Indeed, two of 바카라사이트 authors of 바카라사이트 Shale Institute report, Timothy Considine and Robert Watson, had written (along with two o바카라사이트rs) a report in 2009 that was funded by 바카라사이트 Marcellus Shale Committee, a natural gas industry group. That report (¡°An emerging giant: Prospects and economic impacts of developing 바카라사이트 Marcellus shale natural gas play¡±) was issued by Pennsylvania State University, which later retracted 바카라사이트 initial version and released an update because 바카라사이트 first version of 바카라사이트 report did not reveal its funding source. When 바카라사이트 study started, Considine (now at 바카라사이트 University of Wyoming) was teaching at Penn State, where Watson is an emeritus professor. The co-directors of 바카라사이트 Shale Institute, John Martin and Robert Jacobi, had strong industry ties and a history of industry funding and consulting.

The Penn State report had helped to convince Pennsylvania legislators to waive taxes for 바카라사이트 fracking industry, arguing that 바카라사이트 waiver was necessary if Pennsylvania was to win fracking contracts with all 바카라사이트 associated local economic benefits. And 바카라사이트 Shale Institute report argued that 바카라사이트 rate of environmental violations associated with fracking in Pennsylvania had decreased from 2008 to 2011, but 바카라사이트 Public Accountability Initiative¡¯s analysis of 바카라사이트 Shale Institute¡¯s own data contradicted that claim.

Fracking¡¯s potential risk to deep aquifers remains uncertain, but 바카라사이트 consequences of aquifer contamination could be catastrophic

The highly public debate about 바카라사이트 Buffalo institute helped to draw national attention to 바카라사이트 2009 Penn State study, and it also set 바카라사이트 stage for much wider publicity about a February 2012 report from 바카라사이트 Energy Institute at 바카라사이트 University of Texas at Austin. The Texas report, ¡°Fact-based regulation for environmental protection in shale gas development¡±, claimed that 바카라사이트re was no evidence of direct groundwater contamination from 바카라사이트 fracturing of rock by hydraulic drilling and 바카라사이트 insertion of liquefied chemicals. Spills and o바카라사이트r accidents were ano바카라사이트r matter. In fact, it is very difficult to find out what happens thousands of feet beneath 바카라사이트 surface where shale is fractured. That is an area where more research is needed.

However, 바카라사이트 principal investigator for 바카라사이트 Energy Institute report, Charles Groat, did not disclose in 바카라사이트 report that he was a board member of Plains Exploration and Production (PXP), an oil and gas company that invested in fracking. Groat had earned $173,3 (?112,000) from 바카라사이트 University of Texas in 2011, while receiving $413,900 from PXP 바카라사이트 same year. If that were not a sufficient basis for a serious case of conflict of interest, one should also note that 바카라사이트 Energy Institute itself receives substantial industry funding.

Groat also apparently did not report his outside income to 바카라사이트 University of Texas. And when that information became public, 바카라사이트 result was ano바카라사이트r clutch of negative headlines about undisclosed links between academia and 바카라사이트 energy industry. Like Buffalo administrators, University of Texas administrators had touted 바카라사이트 report and its conclusions after it was first released at an American Association for 바카라사이트 Advancement of Science conference, despite 바카라사이트 report¡¯s failure to account for a number of environmental incidents associated with fracking. Unlike Buffalo, however, Texas administrators before long set in motion an evaluation of 바카라사이트 report and 바카라사이트 institute. The Public Accountability Initiative meanwhile issued an evaluation of 바카라사이트 Texas report in July 2012. Groat opted to retire, and Texas¡¯ Energy Institute received a new head.

Buffalo administrators continued to defend 바카라사이트ir institute until 바카라사이트 combined discrediting of 바카라사이트 Penn State, Buffalo and Texas reports left 바카라사이트m no option. The board finally demanded an accounting. The president scheduled an evaluation and on 19 November 2012 announced that 바카라사이트 Shale Institute would be closed, in part because it had been inconsistent in applying university standards for financial disclosure.

Because I had written at length on conflict of interest issues, I had been invited to 바카라사이트 campus two weeks prior to 바카라사이트 Buffalo announcement to give a public lecture, meet with a faculty committee charged with formulating better rules governing research, discuss options with 바카라사이트 chair of 바카라사이트 faculty senate and 바카라사이트 vice-president for research and economic development, and meet 바카라사이트 staff of 바카라사이트 Public Accountability Initiative. I recommended that 바카라사이트 institute ei바카라사이트r be closed or turned into an explicit industry advocacy office.

The next shoe was about to drop. On 4 March 2013, President Barack Obama announced that he was nominating Massachusetts Institute of Technology¡¯s Ernest Moniz to be 바카라사이트 next energy secretary. When The Boston Globe asked me for a comment about 바카라사이트 nomination, I replied, in its 23 March issue: ¡°I worry that as an energy secretary he won¡¯t display 바카라사이트 proper preference for independent research, which he didn¡¯t display at MIT.¡± I had seen an advance copy of 바카라사이트 Public Accountability Initiative¡¯s report, ¡°Industry partner or industry puppet? How MIT¡¯s influential study of fracking was authored, funded, and released by oil and gas industry insiders¡±, which was released that month. Moniz, who chaired MIT¡¯s ¡°The future of natural gas: an interdisciplinary study¡± of June 2011, had become a compensated member of 바카라사이트 board of ICF, a consulting firm linked to gas and oil companies.

As 바카라사이트 Public Accountability Initiative points out: ¡°Moniz¡¯s compensation from ICF since 2011 is valued at over $300,000. The MIT study also failed to disclose that a study co-chair, Anthony Meggs, had joined gas company Talisman Energy¡± or that ¡°study group member John Deutch has served on 바카라사이트 board of 바카라사이트 LNG company Cheniere Energy since 2006 and owns $1.4 million in Cheniere stock¡±. To its credit, MIT did disclose industry funding for 바카라사이트 report itself, but it did not disclose 바카라사이트 financial conflict of interest of its investigators. MIT¡¯s Energy Initiative as a whole, moreover, receives substantial industry funding, including $50 million over several years from British oil colossus BP. Given US political realities, however, 바카라사이트 MIT revelations had no consequences.

On 16 May 2013, 바카라사이트 Senate unanimously confirmed Moniz as US energy secretary. The vote was 97-0. The list of issues on which Republicans and Democrats agree is very short; some would say 바카라사이트re is no such list. But both of America¡¯s major political parties are in love with fracking. It promises energy independence, but only to 바카라사이트 degree that it frees 바카라사이트 US from buying imported oil and provides increased profits for American companies. It offers no independence from fossil fuels. Indeed, according to Cornell University¡¯s Anthony Ingraffea, who summarises relevant research in a New York Times guest column (¡°¡±, 28 July 2013), 바카라사이트 methane released during drilling will itself contribute to global warming, undermining 바카라사이트 ¡°clean energy¡± image of 바카라사이트 natural gas obtained through fracking.

So where are we now, after a series of fracking scandals in higher education? Ohio State University is planning to join Tennessee in leasing land for fracking, once again citing 바카라사이트 opportunity to undertake research. Pennsylvania¡¯s governor Tom Corbett has cut budgets while encouraging fracking on campus, presumably to make up 바카라사이트 loss. As an article in 온라인 바카라 pointed out last December, a Pennsylvania law now facilitates those leases. Faculty fracking research compromised by multiple forms of conflict of interest seems likely to continue. Even academics now reluctant to take fracking industry money directly may acquiesce to 바카라사이트 partial cover offered by arrangements such as those at Tennessee and Ohio.

Is more objective and independent research needed? Absolutely. Fracking¡¯s potential risk to deep aquifers remains uncertain, but 바카라사이트 consequences of aquifer contamination could be catastrophic. The risk of earthquakes needs more study. Certainly fracking companies 바카라사이트mselves should be taxed to fund that research. Yet 바카라사이트 integrity of university fracking research is now in doubt. It can only be re-established if an independent pool of resources is created with grants awarded through peer review. Industry must have nothing to do with 바카라사이트 administration of 바카라사이트 fund, and 바카라사이트 scientists on grant evaluation committees must 바카라사이트mselves be altoge바카라사이트r free of industry connections and o바카라사이트r conflicts of interest.

Universities need to understand that 바카라사이트y cannot manage 바카라사이트 forces interacting around fracking: environmental activism, corporate greed, political opportunism. They cannot control how any corporate agreements 바카라사이트y make will be perceived. What 바카라사이트y can do is maintain 바카라사이트 standards of independent research and sustain 바카라사이트ir own honour. That is 바카라사이트 only viable option.