The Darker Side of Frackademia

Desmog Blog has a good piece out on the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) created by Section 999 of the notorious 2005 Energy Policy Act. RPSEA is a U.S. Department of Energy-run “non-profit corporation formed by a consortium of premier U.S. energy research universities, industry and independent research organizations.”

Desmog Blog goes on to say that the RPSEA is an instance of frackademia.

Let me say that I am not in favor of the RPSEA. But I don’t think this is a good example of frackademia – at least not as defined by Desmog Blog. Rather, I think this is an instance of a much more insidious problem.  

They define frackademia as follows: “flawed but seemingly legitimate science and economic studies on the controversial oil and gas horizontal drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), but done with industry funding and/or industry-tied academics ("frackademics").”

I think it might be better stated as violations of scientific norms of responsible conduct. I wrote about this in an earlier post. The extreme version of frackademia, so defined, would be “scientific” conclusions that “confirm” foregone industry talking points, but only because the results were fabricated or falsified in some way. Frackademia is problematic, no doubt about it – we need independent research to characterize costs, benefits, and risks. Industry biases masquerading as independent science undermines democratic policymaking, citizen health, and the credibility of science.

But I don’t think that RPSEA is an instance of this particular problem. Desmog Blog even notes that its mission did not call on it to study the dangers of fracking (air and water pollution, hazards, climate impacts). But if it was truly a frackademic institution, these are precisely the studies we would expect it to undertake. And we would expect to see the conclusions of those studies all aligned with the interests of the industry.

The mission statement for RPSEA reads:

“RPSEA is a multi-purpose entity established to facilitate a cooperative effort to identify and develop new methods and integrated systems for exploring, producing, and transporting-to-market energy or other derivative products from ultra-deepwater and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resources, and to ensure that small producers continue to have access to the technical and knowledge resources necessary to continue their important contribution to energy production in the U.S.”

So, it is an R&D initiative (like the 1980s Eastern Gas Shales project) designed to make us better at extracting oil and gas in an era of extreme energy.

That’s the problem: it is a government-sponsored commitment to an insane energy policy dependent on increasingly toxic means of driving us into a climate disaster.

The problem is not that this group will conduct flawed science. The problem is that they will conduct perfectly accurate science that gives us the knowledge to continue our deadly fossil fuel addiction – that makes this form of energy outperform renewables on the market. We shouldn’t be concerned about the knowledge they squelch. We should be concerned about the knowledge they unleash. We don’t need more knowledge about how to scrape yet more hydrocarbons out of the Earth.

If frackademia is bad science in the name of a bad cause, this darker side of frackademia is good science in the name of a bad cause.

This is “darker” because at least bad science (misconduct) can be spotted and rooted out by the scientific community. By contrast, the scientific community (qua scientists) has no problem with good science. The danger here is not that this or that individual will fall prey to money and conflicts of interest, but that entire institutions will be inherently biased such that they only pursue a narrow research agenda. Only certain questions will be asked. No one will think about what goes unasked and unexplored…as long as there is no money in it. When a whole culture is corrupted, corruption is impossible to see…at least from the inside.

This is what is really troubling about RPSEA: not the false answers to tough questions but the tough questions that go unasked.

My concern, as the academy increasingly becomes tethered to such industry-government funds, is less about scientific misconduct (though that is a big worry). Rather, I am concerned that a culture of free thinking will be displaced by group-think; that the academy will be yet another den of mindless instrumentalists who do good, honest research predetermined to further their paymaster’s agenda. And these technological-giants-but-moral-midgets will not even think that the agenda itself might be an object worthy of study.

Frackademics?

Texas Sharon has a thought-provoking blog with good links to stories about what she is calling "frackademia," or those in universities who provide research for corporations to provide legitimacy and credibility for their industrial activities. Much more to be said about this in posts coming soon...

What's Wrong with Frackademia?

The Texas Observer ran another story about financial ties between the oil and gas industry and universities. This is a topic I have noted in several posts on this blog.

So, is there anything really wrong with industry-university ties when it comes to shale gas research and the training of regulators? One way to look at this is in terms of the responsible conduct of research. Maybe the problem is that researchers are violating scientific norms of disinterestedness, universalism, and skepticism. This could cover a spectrum of possible ethical concerns. On the low end, would be perceived conflicts of interest: perhaps academics should be more transparent about their funding sources, but they do not influence their studies or results, so there is no actual conflict of interest. On the far end, we could imagine full blown fabrication and falsification of data in order to yield "scientific conclusions" that "confirm" foregone industry positions about the safety of fracking.

It would require more research than I have seen in stories on this subject to suss out the real story. For example, is there anything suspect in terms of scientific misconduct in the UT report that would indicate prejudgments were replacing scientific skepticism and empirical evidence? But I find it hard to believe that there would not, at least, be all sorts of subtle pressures not to displease one's industrial benefactors.

Of course, those opposed to fracking may not really care if there are actual conflicts of interest. The appearance is enough to raise doubt and discredit the study. But this approach to science knows no end. One can always find ways to cast suspicions on authors, agencies, institutions, and their motives. This is a game that industry plays too. It ends up with everyone appealing to 'the science' and everyone discrediting the science they don't like as tainted and junk.

But we can also view this issue not in terms of conflicts of interest and scientific misconduct, but rather in terms of what I want to call "inherent bias." Many scientists are doing research aimed at improving oil and gas extraction - this research can be done perfectly honestly and responsibly (no misconduct) but it still has an inherent bias, that is, an interest in the well-being of the oil and gas industry. This  kind of bias may be even more troubling than outright misconduct. At least misconduct can be spotted and rooted out in specific instances. By contrast, inherent bias pervades an entire institution, establishing a general orientation, priorities, and research agenda. It would mean, for example that a university flush with industry cash does not investigate potential health, environmental, or justice problems associated with oil and gas. It would establish a pro-industry culture that would be largely unwritten and unconscious; a kind of given framework for approaching the world. It would produce honest research, but research that is systematically directed only toward certain aspects of the whole picture.

This is what is really troubling about univesity-industry ties: not the false answers to tough questions (although that is of course a big concern) but the tough questions that go unasked.