A Controversy

I have in this blog generally steered well clear of politics or, at any rate, Politics with a capital P. I am however, going to venture further out on a limb than I am usually inclined to, because this issue concerns two things that I care passionately about preserving: vigorous debate and free scientific enquiry.

To be specific, I understand that fossil fuels and unconventional extraction (particularly fracking) are controversial. People, indeed many of our students, feel passionately about the risks of unrestrained fossil fuel use and potential environmental damage associated with extraction. Some combine this with a scepticism, likely arising from a particular political stance, about the actions and integrity of large trans-national industrial organisations. We need to debate this, yes with passion, but also with evidence.

The question arises however, as to whether the heat generated by this debate should be permitted to inhibit research undertaken in universities, specifically research conducted with funding from fossil fuel companies and those that supply services to these companies.

My position on this matter is clear: to eschew this funding and more particularly the technical partnerships that support engineering research in this area is, in effect, to withdraw from proper and necessary scientific investigation. To be compelled to do so because of protest that oversteps the bounds of debate and uses the tools of crude propaganda is to bow to intimidation. Academic freedom and free enquiry are delicate and must be protected.

The particular responsibility of scientists and engineers in this area is to undertake research of high quality and integrity and to disseminate their results in a form that secures positive societal outcomes. They may chose to engage in the broader political dialogue, or they may not, that is a matter of individual choice. Free speech includes the right not to speak, though the moral responsibility to do so remains.

Universities have a responsibility for, and are well positioned to, protect both academics and the public from any undue influence that might come with funding. They need to be seen to exercise this responsibility with care and attention. The scientific community has a responsibility for critical scrutiny and is well positioned to exercise it, providing there is a sufficiently large and diverse pool of expert researchers funded to undertake this work and familiar with industry practice and data. This must be grown and sustained.

It is a common pathology of political argument to believe that those who do not hold your particular, firmly held view, are motivated by malice, greed or ignorance, perhaps all three. This is disabling because it prohibits understanding and hence countering the opposing position. It is a poor basis for persuasion and, at a certain point you might suspect that persuasion of those who disagree is not the goal, rather the debate is over the head of opponents with another audience altogether.

Ultimately those who oppose research funded by fossil fuel companies being conducted in universities are unlikely to damage the commercial interests of those companies very significantly. More likely, they will simply cause those companies to limit their research to instrumental ends and to do so within corporate research labs without the requirement to publish. In this way they damage both science and the societal debate they promote.