Opponents of expanded gas drilling have coined the term “frackademia” for university research on the potential impacts of the boom in shale gas drilling that involves industry money or experts with industry ties. The effort, of course, is aimed at conveying that industry money or relationships leads to bad science.

I’ve seen studies of this kind that have robust findings. The “Future of Natural Gas” analysis of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Institute, while undertaken with some industry money and (marginally disclosed) relationships of authors to energy companies, appears to have held up well to independent scrutiny, for instance.

But there are troubling instances in which an undisclosed financial tie has created after-the-fact problems for substantial research projects. This was the case with the report and bundle of related material produced last February by the University of Texas Energy Institute assessing risks from gas drilling using hydraulic fracturing (“fracking” in both environmental and industry shorthand).

The university is assembling a panel to evaluate the report’s findings in the wake of a report from the Public Accountability Initiative that found substantial financial ties between a lead investigator, Prof. Charles G. Groat, and a drilling company. (I noticed that the American Association for the Advancement of Science has added a link about these issues to its February Web page on the announcement of the study at the science group’s annual meeting, but see no such addendum on the University of Texas site, which was last updated in February.)

With all of this in mind, I sought some reflections on the situation from one of the University of Texas’s own experts on conflict of interest, the law professor Thomas O. McGarity, who is a co-author, with his colleague Wendy Wagner, of the book “Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research.”

Here’s McGarity’s “Your Dot” contribution (I added the links in brackets for context):

Like many of my colleagues at the University of Texas School of Law, I was outraged to read in the press that the principal investigator and lead author of a report published under the auspices of the University of Texas’ Energy Institute, entitled “Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development,” had received more than $400,000 in compensation from a shale gas development corporation, held a fiduciary position as a member of the company’s board of directors, and owned more than $1 million in the company’s stock. At first glance, this looks terrible. The conflict of interest is not just apparent; it is obvious. How could someone with such a high stake in the success of a corporation possibly write an objective report on the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and the need for further regulation of that process when the success of the corporation might very well turn on how Congress or state legislatures resolve that question? What makes the situation even worse is that the principal investigator, Charles G. Groat, did not disclose his interest in Plains Exploration and Production in the report. As my colleague Wendy Wagner and I have written in our book Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research, even though the vast majority of scientists would never consciously allow the potential for personal financial gain or loss to influence the outcome of their research, that potential should be disclosed to the reader so that the readers can decide for themselves whether to discount the reported results. In that regard, dozens of studies have shown strong correlations between sponsored research and favorable outcomes for the sponsors. Professor Groat explained that he played only a small role in the actual writing of the report. The report itself indicates that the sections on environmental impacts and regulation were written by Ian Duncan and Hannah Wiseman, respectively. If Professor Groat played such a small role in the preparation of the report, one might wonder about the propriety of allowing himself to be listed as the principal investigator. At the time that she began researching the regulation of shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing, Ms. Wiseman was a Visiting Assistant Professor with the Emerging Scholars Program at the University of Texas School of Law. She completed the draft report for the Energy Institute after joining the faculty at the University of Tulsa College of Law. I followed Professor Wiseman‘s work on fracking when she was at our law school, and have spoken to her since the recent reports in the press. And I am convinced that she was completely unaware of Professor Groat’s apparent conflict of interest. Dr. Groat therefore not only failed to disclose his conflict to readers, but also to the report’s authors (Ian Duncan has told NPR that he was unaware of any of Professor Groat’s industry connections). [Link to NPR coverage.] Despite Professor Groat’s small part in the writing of the report, Professor Groat played a very large role in the promotion of the report. The Energy Institute’s website contains a 12-minute video clipping [link]of Professor Groat describing the report at a press conference, and the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) contains a video clipping of the presentation in which Professor Groat first announced the “results” of the report to the world. Although a few media sources noted the report’s conclusions that improved regulation was needed, the resulting publicity was generally positive about the future prospects for fracking, a result that might have caused the value of his stock to move up a bit. [You can assess the stock’s trajectory here.] The situation gets worse. Although this aspect of the report has not been reported in the press, the sections on regulation in the report that was presented at the AAAS meeting were marked “Draft” and were clearly not in final form. It appears that Dr. Groat rushed the report out of the door, before at least one of the real authors had a chance to complete her work, for the purpose of making a big splash at the AALS annual meeting. Worst of all, when Professor Groat presented the report at the AAAS meeting, he announced that in addition to concluding the effects of fracking on groundwater were minimal, it also concluded that there “isn’t the need for new regulatory frameworks.” After reading the regulatory sections of the report authored by Professor Wiseman, I reached the opposite conclusion — that there is a need for new regulatory frameworks at the federal level, or at least the elimination of the major exemptions that the fracking industry currently enjoys. Ms. Wiseman’s sections of the report, which were only drafts at the time of the meeting, do not reach that conclusion, and a fair reading of the regulatory sections of the report could not possibly come to that conclusion. Those section conclude that “significant gaps remain” in regulation despite updates in some states, and they describe exemptions for fracking wastes from the Resource Recovery and Response Act’s hazardous waste requirements, from the Clean Water Act’s comprehensive permit program for discharges into surface waters, and from the Safe Drinking Water Act (which regulates groundwater pollution). They also highlight many weaknesses in several state regulatory programs. Thus, in addition to rushing out an incomplete report with great fanfare, Professor Groat arguably mischaracterized a critical aspect of that report, all to the benefit an industry in which he was heavily invested and from which he had received compensation totaling more that twice his annual salary.

I contacted Prof. Groat today, telling him that Prof. McGarity’s critique was coming and seeking fresh thoughts beyond what Groat provided in one news account. He deferred from weighing in until the university review of the study is done, saying:

I am weary of dealing with perceptions and won’t have anything further to add regarding your views until the outside review of the report commissioned by the university is completed.

I said I would run his response, but noted:

Keep in mind that the questions about the need to avoid a perception of conflict of interest are distinct from any determination about the quality of the findings.

I hope he’ll address the disclosure issue, which his university already said posed a problem.

Kevin Begos of the Associated Press has file an important story on lagging federal and state funding for research on impacts of gas drilling that is highly relevant to this discussion. If taxpayers won’t back such research, who’s left to do so?