For over ten years, scholars have been urging their universities to stop investing in oil and gas companies. In 2019, demonstrators disrupted a Harvard-Yale football game halftime show, chanting, “Hey hey, ho ho! Fossil fuels have got to go!” Hundreds of schools, including Harvard and partially Yale, have taken steps to divest, and many campus activists are now calling for universities to sever ties with fossil fuel money completely, rejecting grants and alternative investments.
According to a recent study published in WIREs Climate Change, activists suspect that oil money may influence academic research. The study looks at the extensive connections between Big Oil and universities, revealing numerous instances where fossil fuel funding may have created conflicts of interest for researchers in the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia.
The influence extends beyond funding research centers and academic positions. Fossil fuel industry executives sit on universities’ governing boards, sponsor scholarships and conferences, and try to shape courses and curricula. By partnering with universities, oil companies gain credibility, opportunities to hire graduates, and a way to subtly guide conversations about how to address climate change towards their preferred solutions, the study shows.
While the full extent of this funding remains unknown, a report from the think tank Data for Progress found that Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, Shell Oil, ConocoPhillips, and Koch Industries donated at least $677 million to 27 U.S. universities from 2010 to 2020. Some of the largest recipients were the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; and George Mason University.
There is evidence that these relationships can influence academic research. Studies published in the past have shown bias in favor of natural gas due to significant funding from oil companies. Agreements with oil companies can restrict what research gets published and give them control over academic governing boards.
The study suggests that the relationships between oil companies and universities are part of a broader effort to increase political action on global warming, in line with the industry’s history of lobbying against climate-friendly legislation. Fossil fuel funding tends to steer research towards the industry’s preferred technological solutions, such as carbon capture and storage, rather than phasing out oil and gas.
Investing in universities has long been a strategy for unpopular industries, such as pharmaceutical and junk food companies, to improve their reputation and support research that portrays their products in a more favorable light.
In the late 1970s, a manual for industries looking to avoid regulation suggested “co-opting” academics, either by hiring them or providing them with “grants and the like.” It cautioned that the goal “must not be too blatant, for the experts themselves must not realize that they have lost their objectivity.”
Oil companies have been employing this tactic for decades. An internal memo from the American Petroleum Institute in 1998, for instance, recommended building relationships with scientists whose research aligned with the industry group’s position to make a case against climate action. The oil company BP has been funding Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative for twenty years, consistently pouring more than $2 million into the program each generation. In May, an email revealed in a congressional investigation showed a BP executive in 2020 celebrating the “Princeton relationship” as “becoming increasingly synergistic (as of course we had planned!).”
Despite the rampant conflicts of interest, prying more funding information out of universities can require intense effort. One of the authors of the recent study, Emily Eaton, faced resistance when she asked the University of Regina, where she works, to disclose its funders and ultimately ended up winning a lawsuit against the Canadian university.
“It’s surprising to me how fossil industry funding of universities remains shrouded from public view,” said Douglas Almond, a professor of economics at Columbia University who has researched how this money can distort academic research, in an email.
Efforts are growing to combat the fossil fuel industry’s influence at universities. Nearly 1,000 researchers have signed a letter asking universities in the U.S. and U.K. to stop accepting funding from oil and gas companies. Some universities are already responding. In 2022, Princeton voted to “dissociate” from 90 fossil fuel companies, ending a relationship with Exxon (although BP continues to fund some of its climate work).
“We really need more public funding that focuses on research for the public good when it comes to climate, not research that is clearly aligned with the interests of a private sector, extractive industry,” Stephens said.
For over a decade, students have been urging their universities to divest from oil and gas companies. In 2019, protesters disrupted a Harvard-Yale football game, chanting, “Hey hey, ho ho! Fossil fuels have got to go!” Hundreds of schools have taken steps to divest, and many activists are now calling on colleges to sever ties with fossil fuel money altogether.
A new study published in WIREs Climate Change reveals extensive ties between Big Oil and universities, uncovering hundreds of cases where fossil fuel funding may have led to conflicts of interest for researchers. The influence of the fossil fuel industry on higher education is significant, involving partnerships at many universities, according to Jennie Stephens, a co-author of the paper.
The impact of oil money goes beyond funding research centers and academic positions. Fossil fuel industry executives sit on universities’ governing boards, sponsor scholarships and events, and seek to influence courses and curricula. By partnering with universities, oil companies gain credibility, opportunities to hire graduates, and a way to shape the conversation on how to address climate change towards their preferred solutions.
While the full extent of this funding remains unknown, an analysis from the think tank Data for Progress found that major oil companies donated at least $677 million to 27 U.S. universities from 2010 to 2020. There is evidence that such relationships can sway the direction of academic research, with studies showing bias in favor of natural gas when funded by oil companies.
One example highlighted in the recent study was the pipeline company Enbridge’s funding of the University of Calgary’s business school. Title: The Impact of Fossil Fuel Industry Funding on Academic Research
In a study published in WIREs Climate Change, the influence of oil companies on academic institutions is explored, shedding light on how funding from such industries can impact research outcomes. The study reveals that oil companies like Enbridge have been known to exert control over research centers, influencing staffing decisions, board appointments, and research agendas to align with their interests.
The study argues that this type of industry-academic partnership is part of a broader strategy to sway public opinion on climate change, potentially hindering meaningful action to address the crisis. By steering research towards solutions favored by the industry, such as carbon capture technologies, oil companies may be impeding progress towards decarbonization.
While the integrity of individual research studies may not be directly compromised, the overall orientation of academic research towards industry-preferred solutions raises concerns about the transformative potential of the research being conducted. This trend, as highlighted by the study, risks perpetuating the status quo rather than driving meaningful change.
Efforts to combat the influence of fossil fuel funding on universities are gaining momentum, with researchers and activists calling for divestment from oil and gas companies. Some universities, like Princeton, have taken steps to dissociate from fossil fuel companies, signaling a shift towards research agendas that prioritize the public good over industry interests.
In conclusion, the study underscores the need for greater transparency in university funding and a reevaluation of academic research priorities. By reducing reliance on fossil fuel industry funding, universities can ensure that research outcomes are driven by scientific inquiry rather than corporate agendas. In 2019, protesters disrupted a Harvard-Yale football game at halftime, shouting, “Hey hey, ho ho! Fossil fuels have got to go!” Many schools, including Harvard and partially Yale, have taken steps to divest. Now, campus activists are calling for universities to sever ties with fossil fuel money completely.
A recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal WIREs Climate Change reveals extensive connections between Big Oil and universities in the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia. These ties may have led to conflicts of interest for researchers. Fossil fuel industry executives sit on university governing boards, sponsor scholarships and events, and influence courses and curricula.
Despite universities’ reluctance to disclose information, an analysis found that major oil companies donated at least $677 million to 27 US universities from 2010 to 2020. These relationships can influence academic research, as seen in biased studies favoring natural gas due to oil company funding.
Oil companies aim to shape political action on climate change through their university partnerships, promoting their preferred technological solutions like carbon capture and storage. This influence can hinder transformative responses to the climate crisis, reinforcing the status quo. Oil companies have a history of sowing doubt about climate science and lobbying against climate-friendly legislation.
University investments by oil companies have long been a strategy for industries like pharmaceutical and junk food companies to improve their image and fund research in their favor. Oil companies have been using this strategy for decades. An internal memo from the American Petroleum Institute in 1998 exemplified efforts to cultivate relationships with scientists whose research aligned with the industry’s stance to oppose climate action. Over the past two decades, oil company BP has consistently funneled more than $2 million into Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative. In May, a congressional investigation uncovered an email from a BP executive in 2020 celebrating the deepening “synergistic” relationship with Princeton.
However, obtaining detailed funding information from universities can be challenging, as seen in the case of Emily Eaton, who faced resistance when requesting the University of Regina to disclose its funders and eventually won a lawsuit against the Canadian institution. Despite these hurdles, efforts are underway to combat the fossil fuel industry’s influence on universities. Nearly 1,000 researchers have signed a letter urging U.S. and U.K. universities to reject funding from oil and gas companies.
In response to these calls, Princeton University recently voted to “dissociate” from 90 fossil fuel companies, signaling a shift away from industry ties. The push for public funding to support climate research for the common good, rather than industry-aligned research, continues to gain momentum. As the impacts of fossil fuel funding on academic research become more apparent, the need for transparency and accountability in university-industry relationships is increasingly recognized.
The study’s findings shed light on the extensive connections between the fossil fuel industry and universities, revealing potential conflicts of interest in research conducted in the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia. These partnerships not only involve funding research centers and academic positions but also influence decision-making within universities, shaping curricula and research agendas to align with industry interests.
Although the full extent of fossil fuel funding remains undisclosed, an analysis from Data for Progress revealed substantial donations from major oil companies to universities between 2010 and 2020. The influence of industry funding on academic research is evident in past studies that showed biased outcomes in favor of natural gas, highlighting the need for increased scrutiny and oversight of university-industry relationships to ensure research integrity and public interest. Enbridge had the authority to block investment in the Canadian research center if dissatisfied and wanted control over staffing and board members, as well as opportunities for executives and clients to meet with researchers.
The study in WIREs Climate Change argues that oil companies’ relationships with universities aim to influence political action on global warming, aligning with their history of sowing doubt about climate science and lobbying against climate-friendly legislation. Fossil fuel funding tends to steer research towards the industry’s preferred solutions like carbon capture and away from phasing out oil and gas.
Investing in universities has long been a strategy for unpopular industries to shape research in their favor. Oil companies have utilized this tactic for decades, fostering relationships with academics to support their agendas. Efforts are underway to combat the fossil fuel industry’s influence in universities, with researchers calling for divestment from oil and gas companies.
To ensure integrity in academic research, it is crucial to limit industry influence and prioritize public funding for climate research. Universities play a key role in shaping the future of climate action by dissociating from fossil fuel companies and promoting research for the public good. It is essential to support unbiased research that aligns with the interests of society rather than private sector industries. The content will need to be provided before it can be rewritten.
