journalist like me often attempt out academician for input and insight on stories related to the energy conversion , since these professors have often done in - depth research into various fuel sources and their impact . The hope is that these sources are relatively unbiassed ; their allegiance is to the data . But astudypublished Thursday in Nature Climate Change found that big vigor policy centers at top - tier universities that are fund by the fogey fuel industry may produce content more favorable to dirty Energy Department than other , similar centers . This is concerning , because it ’s not just journalists who seek the council of these academics — it ’s policymakers , too .
“ Reports by fossil - funded [ centre ] are more friendly towards natural flatulence than towards renewable Energy Department , while centre less subject on fogey fuel diligence funding show a pro - renewable energy preference , ” Anna Papp , a Ph.D. scholar in Sustainable Development at Columbia University and one of the authors of the paper , told Earther in an email .
donnish centers focused on energy research have become an increasingly well-thought-of and important part in energy insurance policy conversations , as the U.S. and the world start grinding the gears on the get-up-and-go conversion . Representatives from places like Columbia ’s Center on Global Energy Policy and MIT ’s Energy Initiative havetestified in Congressand are often feature on telecasting as experts ; some of their report have even been thesubject of their own Congressional hearing . But several of the most prominent pedantic think tanks turn on energy issues also have significant financial support from the fogey fuel diligence . Columbia ’s Center on Global Energy Policy , for instance , lists its financial partnership on itswebsite , which include openhanded fossil fuel names like BP , ConocoPhillips , ExxonMobil , Chevron , and Occidental Petroleum . ( Full disclosure : While I was employed at a PR firm between 2014 and 2016 , Columbia University ’s Center on Global Energy Policy was a client ; I worked on some of their press needs and material . ) What ’s more , much of the research and whitepapers produced by these centers does not undergo the peer recapitulation process that a scientific theme may have .
Columbia University in New York City.Photo: Mark Lennihan (AP)
“ Given longstanding concerns about the objectiveness of corporate - funded enquiry — for example , biomedical enquiry — we wanted to well understand industry - fund research in the context of climate change , ” Papp said .
Papp and her coauthors set out to see if the reports and material put out by donnish centers who did unwrap their dodo fuel financial support were different from the centers that had no fossil fuel funding or which did not prominently sport that funding . To more accurately seize attitudes from these Department of Energy centers toward certain topics , Papp and her colleagues used a motorcar learning approach known as “ school text as information . ”
“ ‘ Text as data ’ algorithm convert written text to data that can be analyzed quantitatively , ” Papp said . “ A human reader forms an view about the sentiment of judgment of conviction or paragraph , for example , how positive or negative the text is . Of course , labeling sentences manually is extremely time - consuming and immanent . Sentiment analytic thinking tools attack to replicate this process computationally and quantify emotions contained in text . ”
Using a opinion depth psychology puppet , Papp and her fellow investigator roll up 1,706 research report , consisting of more than one million prison term , from 26 free energy inquiry centers at universities found in the U.S. , UK , and Canada publish between 2009 and 2020 . They chose to concenter the analysis on academic centers ’ sentiment towards natural natural gas .
While natural gas has been promoted in the past tense as a “ bridge fuel ” between coal and oil colour and renewables , the massive amount ofmethane involved in its productionhas meant that its former mood - friendly stigmatisation is coming under serious scrutiny . Despite enquiry showing that the creation call for tocease all newfangled fogey fuel geographic expedition immediatelyin order to keep the universe from warming more than 1.5 degrees Anders Celsius , many oil colour and gaseous state majors continue to promote natural gas as part of a climate solvent .
“ Natural gasolene is now the U.S. ’s largest Energy Department source for electricity propagation , ” Papp said . “ All major fogey fuel troupe produce it . So rude gas is very insurance policy - relevant . ”
The researchers found that report from the three conspicuously fossil fuel - funded heart in the psychoanalysis at Columbia , MIT , and at Stanford ’s Precourt Institute for Energy were “ more prosperous ” toward natural gas than renewable push . The positive view in cognitive content from these three centers was “ indistinguishable , ” the paper found , from subject produce by the American Gas Foundation and the American Gas Association , industry groups “ whose expressed purpose is to promote the gas manufacture . ” The 23 energy snapper that did not conspicuously publicize fogey fuel funders , meanwhile , make materials that were favourable to renewable energy and hydropower , and more “ neutral ” toward raw flatulency .
“ Our scholars carry out their research by keep an eye on facts and grounds wherever they lead , independently and free from any influence or control by funders or other pursuit group , ” the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy ’s internet site State Department . “ They cling to stern conflict of pastime insurance established by Columbia University to protect against real or perceived risks to the integrity of research . ” A spokesperson from Columbia ’s Center on Global Energy Policy said that the staff of the Center had not had clip to review the paper but that they had confidence in their scholars and their independent research .
A spokesperson from MIT ’s Energy Initiative said they had not figure the composition and had no comment . “ Our enquiry reports are the work of MIT faculty , staff and students with no influence – no commendation or rejection , no lapse , no opportunity to accept or reject any findings — from any funders , whether MITEI fellow member or not , ” they said in a statement .
Stanford ’s Precourt Institute for Energy did not get back to us . We ’ll update this tarradiddle if they do .
One of the main challenge of this enquiry is that the three center identified as the most positive toward natural accelerator are only the ones who disclose their spectacular relationships with dodo fuel funders . Papp said it was unmanageable to regain entropy on funding from many centers ’ public information sources . It ’s not out of the doubt that fogey fuel companionship may be pay money to other energy centers in this study who simply did not disclose the funding publically . And of the three nub at MIT , Stanford , and Columbia that do disclose larger - shell financing , the inquiry found that less than 25 % of the report produced by these centers between 2009 and 2020 had expressed financial backing acknowledgement . With the cloudy nature of university disclosing financial interest group and without the guardrails built in by compeer - retrospect research , it ’s tough to see out who is paying for the perspectives presented by university energy center — even as the work they put out becomes more and more important to policymakers .
“ The academically - mark but non peer - review enquiry of these Department of Energy center are more and more used for policy fashioning , but without appropriate revealing it is hard for the public and policymakers to influence whether there may be a threat to the nonpartisanship of these products , ” Papp say .
EnergyEnergy developmentEnergy industryEnergy policyExxonMobil
Daily Newsletter
Get the just tech , science , and culture newsworthiness in your inbox day by day .
News from the future , delivered to your present .
You May Also Like
