Faculty and staff members issued a statement expressing concern that Columbia’s financial ties to fossil fuel companies “compromise the objectivity of [their] climate and energy policy research.”

University faculty and staff members published an open letter to the Committee on Research Funding from Fossil Fuel Companies calling for Columbia University to be transparent in their funding and plan to end ties with fossil fuel companies funding climate research. The letter argues that the relationship between the fossil fuel corporations and Columbia compromises the integrity of the University’s climate and energy research. The open letter can be found in full below.

The faculty and staff members reference new research by Sunrise Movement at Columbia that reveals that since 2005, Columbia University has accepted over $43.7 million in donations from fossil fuel companies including Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and ConocoPhillips. The letter highlights that over $15.7 million of these funds were directed to the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP). Signatories argued that this funding raises concerns about the objectivity of research produced by CGEP, referring to it as a conflict of interest. The letter states that eight CGEP reports were written by individuals with direct ties to companies promoting natural gas and three advisory board members work for fossil fuel firms, suggesting a potential alignment of CGEP’s research agenda with the interests of the industry.

In addition, the letter highlights the risk of sponsorship bias when accepting fossil fuel industry donations, specifically referring to risks of funding skewing research design and product to fit sponsor preferences. The letter references a study that reviewed instances when corporate interests have steered research agendas away “from questions that are the most relevant.” Based on this study, signatories maintain that researchers may avoid exploring issues or conclusions that could jeopardize future funding. They argue that scientists and corporations with financial stakes in research outcomes should not dictate the University’s research priorities.

The letter also points to the fossil fuel industry’s history of “funding and supporting the spread of climate disinformation”, citing ExxonMobil’s 1970s campaign that denied climate change as an example of the company opposing their own models that predicted the rise of global warming. The letter pointed to such actions as demonstrating the fossil fuel industry’s disregard for research when business interests are at stake and how having conflicts of interest risks compromising the credibility of the university’s energy research. Similarly, it contends that fossil fuel companies use their partnership with Columbia to further bolster their own business models, using the “credibility and authority of a university as cover when their business models are criticized and, therefore, maintain their social license to operate.” 

The letter also expresses concerns about the reputational damage these findings cause for Columbia, citing a 2023 poll showing that public favorability toward the university dropped by 17 percentage points when respondents learned about its ties to the fossil fuel industry. 

The letter culminates by calling for Columbia University to “commit to full transparency around industry-sponsored projects and donations, to “not accept funding from groups that engage in spreading climate disinformation,” and to “set a timeline to move away from fossil fuel funding of climate research and climate policy research,” citing that peers at Princeton University and Brown University have implemented such measures. 

Open Faculty and Staff Letter to the Committee on Research Funding from Fossil Fuel Companies: 

Dear Committee on Research Funding from Fossil Fuel Companies: 

We write to you at this time of unprecedented climate crisis as academics, researchers, administrators, and staff of the Columbia community who are deeply concerned about our university’s entanglements with the fossil fuel industry. No doubt exists about the role of the fossil fuel industry in causing and now perpetuating this crisis. This alone should cause our community to pause, critically examine, and rework our relationships with fossil fuel companies. To uphold the highest standards of integrity and impartiality, and in the spirit of our fourth purpose, we must ensure that our research and dialogue about this research on climate and energy is untainted by bias linked to funding. 

New research shows that Columbia University has accepted over $43.7 million since 2005 from fossil fuel companies such as Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and ConocoPhillips. Over $15.7 million went to the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), which Almond et al. (2022) found to exhibit a discernible sentiment bias by having a “more positive” stance toward natural gas over renewable energy sources, “including solar and hydro power,” a tendency not observed in non-fossil-funded research centers. It is apparent that accepting this funding creates a conflict of interest. In fact, eight CGEP reports (many of which are not peer-reviewed) have been written by experts concurrently working for companies using and promoting natural gas, and three members of CGEP’s advisory board work simultaneously for the fossil fuel industry.

We believe that this money compromises the objectivity of our climate and climate policy research. It is clearly documented that fossil fuel companies have a history of funding and supporting the spread of climate disinformation. ExxonMobil knew about the disastrous effects of fossil fuel usage since the 1970s yet chose to launch a PR campaign to deny climate change, a fact well-documented by the Columbia School of Journalism. The industry has proven to act without regard for integrity or research principles when its business models depend on the continued mass consumption of fossil fuels. 

Accepting fossil fuel industry donations opens up the possibility of sponsorship bias. A study by Fabbri et al., The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review, concludes, in part, that “Corporate interests can drive research agendas away from questions that are the most relevant.” In other words, the entities that control funding streams effectively control the research process itself, determining which topics receive attention and which are sidelined. This dynamic fosters an environment where researchers may consciously or subconsciously avoid exploring questions or drawing conclusions that could threaten the possibility of future funding. We believe scientists and corporations with a financial interest in research outcomes should not set Columbia’s research agenda.

Fossil fuel companies also use their relationship with Columbia to enable their business model. In a 2019 email, Bob Stout, former VP at BP, wrote: “[Relationships with Columbia] are key parts of our long-term relationship building and outreach to policy makers and influencers in the US and globally.” It is apparent from this quote, as well as numerous additional memos, that companies choose to partner with Columbia because it allows them to use the credibility and authority of a university as cover when their business models are criticized and, therefore, maintain their social license to operate.

In addition, we are concerned with the reputational damage that accepting fossil fuel industry funding will cause Columbia. Polling from Data for Progress conducted in January 2023 surveyed a representative sample of 1,230 likely voters. The poll found that the net favorability towards Columbia University dropped by 17 percentage points (margin of error is 3%) when survey respondents were informed about Columbia’s fossil fuel ties. As the fossil fuel companies strengthen their reputations by funding research and operating closely with Columbia, they tarnish Columbia’s reputation. 

We call on Columbia University to commit to full transparency around industry-sponsored projects and donations (which peers, like Princeton University, already do), not accept funding from groups that engage in spreading climate disinformation (which is the policy of Brown University), and set a timeline to move away from fossil fuel funding of climate research and climate policy research.

Columbia claims to be “deeply committed to integrity in scholarly research.” Given the magnitude of the climate emergency and the importance of Columbia University’s research to address it, it is imperative to remain objective, impartial, and free from even the appearance of bias.

SIPA via Bwog Archives