The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

Fifteen years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Prince William Sound shows little sign of the millions of gallons of crude oil that stained its waters and shoreline. But researchers working for the federal and Alaska governments continue to argue with scientists working for Exxon over whether the spill has caused long-term damage. At stake in the debate is $100-million that the oil company would have to pay the government if research determined that the spill had resulted in continuing, unexpected damage. Scientists on each side accuse the other of bias motivated by money. Can the scientific process survive intact despite the high stakes? Can academics working for Exxon and for the government maintain their integrity despite their financers' vested interest in their findings? Will it ever be possible for scientists to collaborate in situations where litigation plays a central role? Read more...

The media continues to use the figure of 11 million gallons of spilled oil. This is a back-of-the-napkin estimate by an Exxon representative, shortly after the spill.

Dr. Riki Ott, PhD, did some research on this topic and concluded that 30 million gallons was a much more accurate estimate. See http://www.akaction.net/soundtruths22.html for the report. State records indicate that the volume of oil spilled is between 25 to 36 million gallons.

It's somewhat irking that the media keeps using the erroneous figure. I'm sure someone at Exxon giggles whenever he sees that figure in print.

--- Eric Wadsworth

This is laughable. Academics with integrity? Academics will sell their soul if it means they will get money.

I may appear overly cynical, but the empirical evidence is overwhelming. Who has not heard about academic "scientists" who bias their research because they are paid by some large corporation? Well its no different when it comes to federal money. If an academic believes they can con the federal government into giving them more money, they will bias their research accordingly.

Let's also not forget agendas. Many extremists---particularly in the environmental movement---have long ago used pseudo-science to get what they want. Most academics are either part of this environmental movement or certainly sympathetic to it. If they believe they can "stick to big oil" they will sell their soul. Facts will not get in their way.'

I noticed the author of this article only focused on money. I'd like to see a similar article that focuses on leftist agendas among faculty.

This $100 million reopener clause is a diversion, a means to an end.

September 16 2004 marked the ten-year anniversary of the $5 billion punitive damages ruling against Exxon for the spill of 1989. This is the real battle, the end run. Exxon continues to avoid paying the fine, preferring instead to keep it tied up in appeals court. After ten years of appeals, the fine has been reduced to $4.5 billion, plus interest.

If Exxon can sidestep the $100 million reopener, they stand a real chance of getting some slack on the punitive damages. After all, some may say, if the spills effects have gone away, does Exxon really need to be punished so much?

The main goal should be to prevent this type of artificial disaster from recurring. If $100 million will help remove effects of the spill, that's wonderful. If no means is found to apply the funds to healing the environment, at least it could be used to fund preventative measures to protect the our future environment.

Money has tainted one side, the Exxon-Mobil side. It is clear that Exxon continues to lie and bring in unethical idiots who wish to lie for them for the price of a cruise and some pocket change. Tainted science is used by Exxon-Mobil and continues to be used by Exxon-Mobil for many purposes.

To even ask this question with respect to peer-reviewed and funded research is ludicrous when compared to Exxon's hand picking "scientists" willing to sell their intellectual souls. The writer tries to provide a balanced view, but even in this balance you can see the travesty, sham and mockery (a travishamockery) of the whole situation.

Disgusted reader is precisely the type of person I am referring to. She believes Exxon is inherently bad and therefore any research conducted that supports Exxon's view is tainted.

I have a question for disgusted reader. If the academic "scientist" took your point of view, would they automatically be credible? (You don't have to answer. Everyone already knows the answer is YES.)

I�m an Environmental Engineering professor and assistant in a Professional Responsibility course too.
I agree with David that this $100 million issue is not truly relevant. The question is whether scientists can responsibly conduct research in environmental matters that can lead to real preventive measures. We are reading now about the disasters due to unusually frequent hurricanes and tropical storms in the whole Caribbean area, including part of the US. I read somewhere that Frances will cost the US U$S 10 billion to cover material damages. Today papers tell about more than 600 people dead in Haiti's floods..... For the past days I've been reading "scientists" saying that global warming is the cause of these unusually frequent disasters, and that it will be growing worse.
But there is no scientific agreement on this matter, nor on any other where environment and industry interests collide. Sometimes I feel that I'm just teaching nonsense in both courses.....

Exxon is funding their own research and will not allow others have access to all research, unless it complies with their point of view. The NSF (and other government agencies) is a broker in this research and being at the NSF, means that you are somewhat unbiased on the results. You fund research with few if any strings attached and let the results fall where they are. As we can see from your comments, NSF has people and directors from all sides of the issue. Thus, I see them as being a more honest broker and agent than a conflict ridden scientist who is working for Exxon Mobil. An yes, Exxon-Mobil has serious credibility issues in what they are trying to do with their so-called science.

Simply put, the Exxon hired guns are facing much more conflict of interest issues than those hired by a relatively disinterested party like the Government. Again, there are no absolutes, but the balance is pretty clear that there is more conflict of interest with Exxon's research than with the government's researchers or independent researchers.

By the way. Exxon-Mobil doesn't believe the science for Global Warming. They will not allow their decisions to be guided by unsound science. Their own scientists say so.

I'm quite aware that no oil company agrees about global warming...and some governments loke yours either.
I expressly didn't point the fact in my previuos message, since I don't want to be accused of "green" or anti-American or whatever...... since I'm not.
You're the ones that are going to pay for Frances' 10 billion bill, and yet it seems that it's not a disturbing figure for US people. What I see is that we'll keep reading about endless so-called "scientific" arguments about what happened 15 years ago or is happening now - where environment is not the real issue.
And time will tell us all - or our grandsons - if global warming is here to stay, and make us pay for it.
So where this problem leaves us??? I don't know...
I'm just a concerned professor from "nowhere"; I'll never see myself playing in the major scientific leagues... but I'm still telling my students that environmental matters are important and that they can do something about it as responsible professionals in the future. Am I being naive? So it seems.... and yet, many of us down here still have hopes that there actually exist rich countries' true scientists with integrity and power to actually do some positive contribution to environmental prevention and have it done.

I read a while back that Exxon had selected their scientific spokespersons specifically for their British accents. This was because studies had shown that Americans gave more credibility to those with British accents.

This gives an idea of what kind of "science" Exxon-Mobil is interested in.

Quote...

"I'm quite aware that no oil company agrees about global warming..."

It is quite interesting to note that the American tobacco companies adopted this same attitude toward the harm that is caused by cigarette smoking. I remember as a child reading Phillip Morris magazine for smokers and wondering how ignorant that corporate America thought that the average American could get.

If we drive the oil interests from our shores they will go exploit the third world just like the Tobacco companies have done. This pattern can be seen throughout corporate America and the Western corporate world. The bottom line is that these folks have no ethics except the almighty dollar. In America we have created this corporate monster and let it loose upon ourselves and the world.

That is a shame.

Might I suggest the attitudes of the Western Corporate World has certain Islamic radicals ready to die in Jihad rather than to die from being exploited at the hands of the interests of the Western corporate world? They, like the Nazis, are blaming the Jew whom they equate with wealth and business and that makes Israel their number one target, with perhaps New York target number two. Of course, they too are dysfunctional, and are now killing the world's innocent to just make a point. You see, the poor and the average world citizen are now getting it from two directions.

Incredible, indeed. The only problem with most of the Western corporate world is that it has grown to big and too strong to spank in any manner what so ever. However, it has the collective social mind of a child and the body of a monolith that is perhaps at level 1 according to Kohlberg's morality scale, if that high.

http://students.usm.maine.edu/bmcpha61/Kohlberg_stages_of_morality.htm

There is no way to enlighten these folks. They consider themselves better, more moral, ect., than the rest of us because they are rich. Perhaps there should be a level on Kohlberg's morality scale at a level lower than 1 to accurately describe them, collectively. Perhaps a good forum debate might be how we could begin to describe the negativity of these folks in words.

This debate is so sad.

It is evident even to the casual observer what is going on with things like this and who has lots of money to throw at it so that their side may win at the expense of humanity.

Science is always exploited to make a profit or to gain an unfair advantage over those who do not know what it is or how to use it properly.

Thanks for this discussion on the power of money in tainting (or not) research. This is such an important question. I commend you for bringing it before us.

As an Alaska resident, I am constantly struck by the continuing importance of research on environmental impacts of dependence on oil, and, at the same time, the financially driven polemics of such research and discussion.

I'd like to suggest that this 'money influencing research' issue isn't only a case of, "is there continuing impact from the Exxon Valdez oil spill 15 years ago," however. Today a battle is raging over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Money is playing a significant part in the framing of this vital issue as well.

Visit http://oilonice.net to see video clips and information about OIL ON ICE, a documentary film and WebDVD about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the controversy over drilling for oil in ANWR. Oil on Ice raises issues that, though often considered separately, are inextricably linked with each other. Such issues are often lost as money sways the framing and execution of research.

I hope that we can find ways to overcome corporate capitalism's strangle hold on research, academia, and the environment.

---------------------------------------------
According to the Oil on Ice website:

The battle for the future of America's greatest wilderness involves:

* the protection of a unique and irreplaceable natural environment
* the habitat of resident arctic wildlife
* the fate of migratory wildlife that feed and breed in the arctic
* the rights of indigenous people
* progress in energy conservation
* the development of nonpolluting and renewable energy sources
* humanity's response--or failure to respond--to global climate change

Scientists suppose to know that they are all in one course to create convenience of existence to humanity and when the process of this convenience is in jeopardy the ethical responsibility in them has to overide every other interest to make possible the evidence of truth.
But people should realize that whenever there is a legal involvement in a given process the interest of benefits or risk of incrimination and its subsequent damages responsibility tends to overide even the acclaimed or professional responsibility.Hence, the purpose to come clean in provision of true findings retains the clause of questioning.Again as humans,the scientist will eventually dance to the tunes of their financial god-fathers but in realistic terms they suppose not to be swayed by anyone against their ethical acquisitions that recomends the values of ethical responsibility first to promote the growth of their accepted displine.
However,without greater reliance on moral controles the factors of money,employers(financiers) and litigation are not in any way very negligible to reverse the course of truth.
From,
Ben.N.Nweke,
31 odejobi street,
Agege,Lagos.

Has money tainted research on oiled waters?