In the past month we have witnessed record-breaking storms, provoking pressing questions about our changing climate, while the Cassini probe concluded an almost 20-year journey in space which has shaped our understanding of the solar system. It is perhaps the ideal moment for the New Scientist to be hosting “the world’s most exciting festival of ideas” – New Scientist Live – an event which is “rooted in the biggest, best and most provocative science” and “will touch on all areas of human life”. But ahead of the festival’s opening, it is not the science that has been provocative. Instead, it is the choice of the oil corporation Shell and the arms company BAE Systems as sponsors.

Museums and galleries have come under mounting pressure over the ethics of their fundraising. In 2015, the Science Museum faced tough scrutiny when it was revealed how Shell had attempted to influence the climate science exhibition it was sponsoring. While it normally produces news articles, not exhibitions, New Scientist also needs to demonstrate that is accountable and ethical in how it operates. Today, the importance of fair, balanced and accurate journalism – particularly science journalism – is becoming ever more important. Just last week, respected researchers Myles Allen and Richard Millar felt called to speak out as sceptics in the media misrepresented their research into how much carbon dioxide we can emit into the atmosphere and still hope to achieve the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement.

Science Museum condemned for oil company sponsorship Read more

The decision to accept sponsorship from an oil or arms company might seem altogether different in nature from the spin of science sceptics in the media. But, just as sceptics can cynically lift fragments of research to fit their narratives, sponsorship deals allow companies like Shell to symbolically lift from the good reputations of others, in return for a modest fee. By associating itself with the New Scientist’s brand, Shell can propagate an image of itself that is centred on ideas of progress, scientific research and social responsibility. This “shiny” version of Shell is carefully constructed, deflecting attention from its human rights and environmental impacts around the world.

It’s often argued that as long as there is a clear separation between financial and curatorial or editorial decision-making, then such sponsorship deals raise no ethical issues. This argument assumes that what Shell is buying into is the substance of science. In reality, their interest is in buying “the brand” of scientific research and the social legitimacy that comes with it. In recent issues, the New Scientist has been publishing BP-sponsored articles that promote BP-funded research and, when posted online, are surrounded by adverts for other BP-funded content. BP seems all too aware of the fossil fuel industry’s image problem, while the New Scientist seems to be in denial. As the company’s articles sit alongside the research of others, they inevitably acquire an authority that they have not earned.

And when New Scientist Live opens this Thursday, Shell, a company that has funded attempts to undermine climate science and contaminated the Niger Delta with numerous oil spills, will sponsor the festival’s “Earth Zone”. To ignore the obvious irony here is itself a cynical form of denial. The penetration of these spaces and fora, perhaps even more than the unfounded claims of sceptics, are what allow Shell and BP to present their plans for the continued extraction of fossil fuels as reasonable.

This cognitive dissonance isn’t confined to climate change. Just two weeks ago, the ExCel Centre – where New Scientist Live will take place – played host to the world’s largest arms fair, with companies such as BAE Systems shoring up new deals with repressive regimes. Outside, over one hundred protesters were arrested as they attempted to stop displays of weaponry getting into the building. And BAE Systems that will line up alongside Shell on this weekend’s list of sponsors, attaching its logo to the festival’s “Engineering Zone”. While the company guarantees that visitors will ‘learn something new and exciting’, it is unlikely that the central role its weapons are playing in Saudi Arabia’s bombardment of Yemen will be on the agenda.

More than 100 people arrested over London arms fair protests Read more

We might think about these sponsorship deals in isolation but they are an integral part of strategic business plans, carefully constructed in order to maintain political power, influence and preserve the status quo. Research has revealed how BP has been able to use its sponsorship deals as a way to shore up valuable relationships with policy makers, and often at crucial moments. In 2015, just months before BP would bid on new drilling licenses in the Gulf of Mexico, the British Museum played host to a Mexico-themed event sponsored by BP, where the company’s staff mingled with ministers from the Mexican government at a private reception. As BP’s vice president Peter Mather has admitted, “When there is an option, naturally we are going to try to match a particular exhibition with somewhere we have an interest.”

Sponsorship payments are not made in an ethical vacuum. It is essential that corporations fuelling the climate crisis and profiting from repression are not allowed to purchase a veneer of respectability and hide behind the reputation of science. Earlier this year, the March for Science was a powerful recognition that the reputation of science, its role in society and in policy-making is now something that needs to be defended. It is more important than ever that we hold scientific and cultural institutions to account for the decisions they make, the narratives they construct and the companies they keep as sponsors.

At the opening of New Scientist Live on Thursday, members of the Campaign Against Climate Change, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Scientists for Global Responsibility, Medact and Art Not Oil will hold a joint protest, highlighting the Shell and BAE Systems sponsorship of the festival.