Fracking Is Safe, Say University Studies Funded by Frackers

Fracking is horrible for the environment, right? Well, a large body of evidence does say that pumping the ground full of chemical-laced water isn’t a good idea, but as is always the case with science, researchers are now popping up that oppose the conclusions of some data. As I briefly noted yesterday, this is how research generally works: researchers will debate numbers and conclusions, while the media tend to take the latest shocking report as gospel. But here’s how science can’t work: when university-backed researchers are paid off to report misleading conclusions.

Now University of Texas researcher Dr. Charles “Chip” Groat might take issue with that characterization, but being a member of the media, I can only see things in black and white. Seriously though, here’s what happened: Groat scored a wealth of headlines at the end of last year for a study that supposedly found no link between fracking and groundwater contamination.

“Hydraulic fracturing doesn’t seem to be of concern to groundwater,” Groat told the Statesman in Austin. “If there has been water contaminated related to shale gas development let’s not look at fracturing, let’s look at surface processes.” In other words, he said fracking risks to groundwater were no different than other types of drilling, despite fracking requiring the injection of thousands of gallons of chemical-laced water into the water table.

The only problem? Groat has a massive conflict of interest. A report from the Public Accountability Initiative states that Groat received $400,000 (more than double his teaching salary) last year for sitting on the board of Plains Exploration and Production Company, a petroleum company based in Houston that fracks around the country. According to NPR’s State Impact, Groat has received upwards of $2 million worth of compensation from a company whose interests he directly protected through his research.

While that appears unseemly, it might be less of an issue if the research itself was solid. But the PAI found big issues with Groat’s widely-reported study. From State Impact:

While the report's release was promoted heavily by the University of Texas at Austin, PAI alleges that "two of the report's main sections are marked as rough drafts." It also alleges that the study used "industry-friendly" language, made claims of peer review that don't appear to be substantiated, and that the report's findings had an "extreme disconnect" with what was in the press release accompanying the study. And while Groat made a big claim that the study was independent of industry or environmental interests, saying that it was "completely funded by the university," the discovery of Groat's significant financial ties to drilling undercuts that. His stake in Plains Exploration and Production wasn't disclosed in the Energy Institute's fracking study, Public Accountability Initiative says, nor was it "on the Institute's website, or in the various presentations Groat gave on the study."

So, Groat’s pretty much struck out hard here: not only does he sit on the board of a company whose interests rely on the environmental data he’s producing, he didn’t disclose the fact, and in any case his work wasn’t exactly tip-top. But with budget-strapped universities struggling to find research funding, Groat’s case isn’t exactly an anomaly. And as Bloomberg reported, the fracking industry is sending a lot of money researchers’ ways:

As the U.S. enjoys a natural-gas boom from a process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, producers are taking a page from the tobacco industry playbook: funding research at established universities that arrives at conclusions that counter concerns raised by critics. Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, who made the tobacco analogy, said companies and their trade associations are "buying the prestige" of universities that are sometimes not transparent about funding nor vigilant enough to prevent financial interests from shaping research findings.

Of course, researchers argue that their science is sound, which perhaps sometimes is the case. But, again, when your funding comes from a biased source, you better be sure your work is as flawless as possible, because your work will already be cast in an unfriendly light. And when researchers don’t do a good job of disclosing where their money came from, it looks even shadier.

It’s not just tobacco and fracking, either. We’ve seen this type of hogwashery in red wine and video game studies, as well as countless other fields. So what can you, dear reader, take away from this? Well, first, not all (not much!) research has ethical issues, so don’t fall into the black-and-white trap. As always, you just have make sure you read any blockbuster reports with a healthy dose of skepticism, to make sure that both the research is sound and that news outlets haven’t hyped up controversy or definite conclusions where there aren’t any. And remember, with any contentious issue, be it fracking or climate change, know that any single report likely won’t hold all the answers.

Follow Derek Mead on Twitter: @derektmead.

• Hyper-Intelligent Space Dinosaurs Drink Red Wine for Health
• Fracking Is Also Poisoning the Air
• Frack the Dead