Browse
Engage
Research
Research contracts between universities and the oil sector often fail to provide sufficient academic control and independence, a new report suggests.
This is giving a great deal of influence to Big Oil as it increasingly turns to the academic community to perform its commercial research and development, according to the report, "Big Oil Goes to College."
The report, produced by the Center for American Progress, is based on independent analyses of 10 major energy research collaboration contracts between universities and oil companies, such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips.
"Because Big Oil seems poised to play such an important role in advancing cutting-edge energy technology development, it is critical that policymakers and the public better understand the implications and effects of these public-private partnerships," the report said. "This report asks hard questions about the consequences of allowing private corporations to sponsor research at academic institutions that pride themselves on using high-quality scientific as well as independent peer-reviewed methods to come to impartial results."
The analyses found that universities often give up majority control over the governing body in charge of the research alliance, and sometimes even give up full control. The contracts failed to require peer review, and most universities cede majority control over selecting which projects to undertake.
"In short, the 10 contracts examined in this report indicate that the balance between Boi Oil's commercial interests and university's commitment to independent academic research, high-quality science, and academic freedom seems to have tiled in favor of Big Oil," the report said.
Several universities analyzed in the report defended themselves Friday. In a San Francisco Chronicle news story, University of California at Berkeley (UCB), University of California at Davis (UCD) and Stanford University said the report's author failed to go beyond the contracts to see whether any conflicts of interest actually occurred.
The report criticized UCB for leaving out conflict-of-interest language in the contract for UCB's Energy Biosciences Institute and BP. Bob Price, the school's associate vice chancellor for research, however, told the Chronicle that UCB's conflict-of-interest policies already cover research activities.
Adding such protections to research contracts "would make our policies negotiable with the outside," Price said.
Image CC licensed by Flickr user richardmasoner.
I'm a university researcher
I'm a university researcher in alternative fuel and I've never been able to get a major government grant because I do not have a contract with BP or any big oil company. DOE now pretty much just gives the money to the BP collaborators. There is no real peer review. I learned that last time I applied for a grant, DOE just contracted an energy company to distribute the funding directly.
I agree with the reports recommendations for the government. Grant proposals need to be reviewed. However the report's recommendations for universities totally miss the point. They want to regulate the corporate money and restrict the faculty and the university from benefiting from the research, but they don't worry about big oil benefitting from government or public money.
The universities need to regulate their own money, the government money, and the discoveries made by faculty. It should be acceptable for the universities to benefit, and for the faculty members to benefit from their own work. When there are benefits to be had, the alternative is to only let some outsider benefit.
Currently, the administrators steal the research from the faculty and give it to big oil. That's what happened to me. This report's recommendations to universities encourage that. Some of these recommendations are aimed at preventing me, the inventor, from having a say about it, because they claim that would be a conflict of interest. I don't think some certain company should be able to get greater access or IP rights over other companies or that the inventors should lose their right to do their own research. I think universities should have the right to manage funding from government or public sources, and to manage IP developed from those sources, but when manage means take it away from a faculty member and give it to a favored company, in exchange for some future or past favor, it isn't fair to the faculty member or the public. When you talk about preventing faculty members or the university from benefiting from public money, what you're saying is you want some independent company to come in and take the product of the research on the cheap and not let the university or faculty member be rewarded. This is how this type of conflict of interest policy works out. No one related to the research benefits, but why would anyone fund it or do it only so some other party can benefit.
BP is about to launch its new
BP is about to launch its new BPCares website. In a heated discussion with the board, BP marketers insisted in giveback to the retail operators to offset the hardships the operaters are suffering because of the spill.
BP promised that they will be very aggressive in promoting its new BPCares website. The domains that BP now owns are:
BPCares.com
BPCares.net
BPCares.org
BPCares.info
BPCares.us
BPCares.biz
BP promised the marketers from the BPAMA that the website should be up soon after the upcoming convention.
As an environmentally
As an environmentally sensitive person, it is distressing for an industry I tend to distrust to be wheedling its way into academic discourse like this. But the phenomenon of conflicts happening between research and economic gain is hardly limited to the oil sector and I think is only increasing as the "public-private partnership" model gains popularity. The money always comes from somewhere. I just hope that students are getting adequately compensated with grants and jobs, and that they have enough academic integrity to be intellectually honest with their research publications.