Committee releases uninspired report. But this isn’t the end.
Dear Coalition Supporters,
Hope all is well and that you’re staying safe from the extreme heat this summer. Recently, Stanford’s committee on fossil fuel funding (formally called the Committee on Funding for Energy Research and Education, or CFERE) released a report summarizing its findings and recommendations (finally) during the past year and a half. As the Stanford News article put it, it basically recommends against prohibiting research funds from any fossil fuel company because, according to the committee’s view, that would infringe on academic freedom. But, it recommends stronger oversight of the industrial affiliate programs that receive this funding. In other words, CFERE recommended putting a loose band-aid on a problematic status quo, because they think we shouldn’t effectively address it due to a 50-year-old academic freedom policy.
The guardrails we have long advocated for go beyond simply “greater oversight,” consisting of criteria that can help faculty and directors evaluate which oil and gas companies are truly aligned with addressing the climate crisis and fossil fuel pollution. Most of Doerr’s oily funders have fueled climate disinformation, anti-climate lobbying, and greenwashing propaganda that are unarguably antithetical to sound science. However, the report recognizes that climate disinformation campaigns could be effective criteria (a huge success) — now, they must recommend their actual implementation.
Coincidentally or not, this report was released two weeks into the summer, which prevents us from taking in-person protests and actions. However, we can most certainly spread our reactions to this report. Repost on social media (check out our Instagram and Twitter/X) and keep an eye out for the news — this Politico article has already covered this development. Email us at fffreestanford@gmail.com if you want the PDF!
Please feel free to email us as well with any thoughts on the committee’s report, the article, or with any questions at all! Below is a list of fallacies and red flags of the report followed by a rebuttal of the academic freedom argument.
List of Fallacies & Red Flags
This is a straw man fallacy, where the one, specific demand concerning fossil fuel corporate funders of industrial affiliate programs is exaggerated to include any funders of any research. Arguing that fossil fuel funders often lead to biased climate research is supported by numerous studies and the funders’ anti-climate track records. If a corporation’s mission is truly aligned with the research goals, then it is much less likely that the research is tainted. When it comes to Exxon funding climate research, it’s much harder to argue that that is the case, which is what we’re actually talking about. This is clearly a cop-out argument.
Academic freedom is directly addressed in the following section, but it is worth noting how targeting “other controversial industries” is depicted as a bad thing by a previous Stanford Provost. If other research is funded by problematic corporations with conflicting profit-driven interests, that should also be evaluated for the sake of sound science and research. Plus, this is a classic example of a slippery slope fallacy.
Discouraging speculative discussions on “the political or moral impropriety” of research agendas has been and can be harmful, as exemplified by racist eugenics research of the 20th century — it was morally improper and scientific nonsense, but, at the time, eugenicists argued in favor of its “educational merits.” Likewise, a research agenda on the economic harms of immigration, funded by conservative xenophobic think tanks, would also be improper and biased. Universities must not simply “foster an environment conducive to research” but to good, reliable, unbiased research. As long as research on the role of natural gas in society is funded by natural gas companies, that will not be the case.
The excerpts above show that there is ample opportunity for fossil fuel companies’ scientists to work with Stanford scientists, which makes the research prone to the company’s bias — especially when there are conflicting interests. Co-authoring papers, meeting “from time to time,” and indicating topics of the company’s interest are significant ways that oil and gas funders can steer the research agenda. Moreover, a congressional investigation revealed how companies like BP selectively choose to fund research whose results prove more useful to them. The pressure to find research funding is considerable, which only exacerbates the appeal of fossil fuel money despite its stain. Although faculty directors ultimately decide on the research topic, if they decide to study something unfavorable to their fossil fuel funders — say, the socioeconomic harms of expanding oil drilling — would Shell still want to fund it? Probably not. Disregarding and undermining the reality and risk of the funder's influence is irresponsible.
Empowering students to have greater control and say over their sources of funding is a key part of implementing and enforcing criteria. Student researchers want to minimize their exposure to deceptive funders, while still being financially supported. Suggesting these two intentions are incompatible fails to account for Stanford’s responsibility to ensure that its students are financially secure. Students and faculty alike should not have to face the choice between no funding and a funder with a problematic track record — there are plenty more funds out there that don’t come with Big Oil’s baggage.
Consulting with Exxon on whether to financially dissociate from Exxon is counter-intuitive and far from impartial. The company benefits reputationally from funding Stanford research, so it’s unlikely they would advise in favor of robust criteria of engagement based on climate disinformation and climate policy obstruction — both of which they’ve done plenty of.
This argument is often used whenever anything fossil-fuel-related is being criticized and is an oversimplification fallacy.Stating that increasing energy access in economically disadvantaged and exploited countries must be in “balance” with addressing the climate crisis suggests that those are in conflict — which is not true, and increasingly even more false as clean energy has become cheaper and cheaper. It also leaves out context, from the fact that socioeconomically disadvantaged folks worldwide are disproportionately sufferingdue to climate change and fossil fuel pollution, the latter of which kills over 5 million people per year. The Global South bears the brunt of this pollution, and multinational fossil fuel companies like the ones funding Stanford’s research have wreaked havoc in too many countries through fossil fuel extraction. So, it would be lovely if folks stopped using the “poor countries need more energy” simplification as a green light for rich countries, banks, and fossil fuel companies to keepexpanding fossil fuel production in developing countries.
Academic Freedom Absolutism vs. Academic Responsibility
Needless to say, academics must absolutely be free from undue interference and influence on their research. And that includes influence from the fossil fuel industry. The definition of academic freedom by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) explicitly upholds the freedom to “publish findings without interference from […] donors.” Academic freedom must include the freedom from corporate orthodoxy too, and if Stanford’s 50-year-old academic freedom policy doesn’t include that, then it must be updated to keep up with history. Since Stanford’s 1974 Statement on Academic Freedom was created, corporate funding of university research has skyrocketed, making research bias and influence more likely due to potential profit-driven conflicts of interest.
The committee does recognize that “dissociation based on characteristics of the funder is not absolutely forbidden by principles of academic freedom.” However, its members argue that the reasons for dissociation may violate the “prohibition of institutional orthodoxy” which “comes into play when the rationale for dissociation embodies a decision of policy or morality that does not directly involve the University’s internal affairs.” So, the committee asks for “clear and objective criteria” if Stanford were to dissociate with fossil fuel companies. In fact, it even recommends that the Law School Policy Lab research and develop criteria based on climate disinformation.
But, despite also pointing out that funders that spread scientific disinformation “may be seen to compromise the University’s truth-seeking mission,” the committee still advised against dissociation due to academic freedom.
This academic freedom absolutism is the enemy of good science. It is irrefutable that many oil and gas companies have deliberately spread false information — it’s not a judgment, it’s a fact, and one that threatens academic integrity. How can we trust companies that distort science to fund it? Putting academic freedom above all else and excluding funder influence from its definition is anything but good scientific practice. Under such academic freedom absolutism, eugenics research can flourish, Purdue Pharma can undermine opioid research, and agrochemical companies can fund studies on the benefits of pesticides for your health.
It’s not academically responsible. There are times when academic responsibility must be prioritized over the absolute academic freedom to take money from whomever, and the ever-worsening climate crisis is one such time. We can afford neither the risk and much less the reality of biased climate and energy research.
What now?
According to Stanford News, later this summer there will be a virtual discussion session about the report and, during Fall quarter, an in-person event on campus. We will keep you posted on those!
Regardless of whether Stanford and Doerr's leadership ultimately decides to take the harder path of bold, effective action, or the easy path of whimsically justifying the status quo, there will always be Stanford community members like us who envision a better school of sustainability — one grounded in climate justice every step of the way, from funding to result. Rest assured, we will not rest until that vision is achieved.
In Solidarity,
