Professional Documents
Culture Documents
org/texas/2012/12/06/review-of-ut-fracking-study-finds-failure-todisclose-conflict-of-interest/
administrators, concerns were expressed about whether these policies were sufficiently comprehensive. Aside from that conflict of interest, the review finds many other errors and missteps in both the study and University policies:
Because of inadequacy in conflict of interest policies at UT at the time, conflict of interest and disclosure policies were largely ignored. The report itself was presented as having scientific findings, but much of it was in fact based on literature surveys, incident reports and conjecture. The review goes so far as to say that the term fact-based would not apply to such an analysis and it lacked a rigorous, independent review of its findings. The summary of the study, which was widely distributed and trumpeted by a UT press release, failed to include many of the caveats within the actual report. Some of the conclusions were tentative, the review says, and the press release and presentation of the report at a scientific conference in February was inappropriately selective and seemed to suggest that public concerns were without scientific basis and largely resulted from media bias. The study was also not ready for distribution, as Public Accountability Initiativenoted in July. The drafts in the study were not subjected to serious peer review and therefore were not ready to be considered for public release as fact-based work. The review calls on the Energy Institute to withdraw the study, and that the authors of the individual white papers that made the study should be allowed sufficient time and opportunity to finish their work to prepare it for independent scientific review. The review did not examine the environmental impact of fracking itself, only the actual study by the Energy Institute. After similar issues at the University at Buffalo over a report on fracking that also lacked scientific backing and failed to disclose industry ties, the Univeristy shuttered its Shale Resources and Society Institute, which released the study, last month. While the review says that it would be impracticable, and likely inappropriate to seek to eliminate all ties between researchand the oil and gas industry, it says that the key is transparency. Both the press release and original study are not linked on the Energy Institutes website, but the study is still available online. The University said in a release today that it accepts the findings of the review, and will implement all of its recommendations. Updates: In an interview with StateImpact Texas, University of Texas at Austin Provost Steven Leslie says that UT is taking very strong and quick action to get our hands around the issue. These are matters that affect the credibility and the public trust relating to the university. Leslie says that the University will conduct a campus-wide compliance auditand that the Energy Institute will be re-structured, but not shut down. Chip Groat, the UT professor at the center of the controversy, says in an email to StateImpact Texas that he should have made a disclosure. However, I continue to be disturbed by the assumption by many that a university faculty member with financial connections to industry cannot be unbiased, Groat writes. This blanket indictment isnt fair to most faculty members or most industries. I am also concerned that my retirement is being linked to controversies related to the report. My retirement is linked to my very fulfilling position in Louisiana, which began February 1 when I took leave from the university, before any controversy emerged. Since I am no longer affiliated with UT, I will leave this unpleasant episode behind me.
Kevin Connor, Director of Public Accountability Initiative, which originally disclosed the conflict of interest in July, tells us he is satisfied with the review and the retirement and resignation of the two UT professors. I see this as a commendable stand for integrity and transparency, he tells StateImpact Texas, and I think it sets a strong example for other universities and sends a strong message to the oil and gas industry that this kind of sham research wont be tolerated or supported by universities. Update, Friday Dec. 7, 2012, 10 AM: In a press release Thursday, UT announced that Orbach had resigned. It did not say, however, that Orbach will be staying at UT as a tenured professor. In an interview with StateImpact Texas, Provost Steven Leslie didnt mention it, either, saying ,the person who oversaw the fracking report has retired from the University, and the Director resigned over this. Orbach has in fact only resigned as head of the Energy Institute, effective December 31. A UT spokesperson maintains that the exclusion of this information wasnt intentional. UT has since updated the press release, noting Orbachs continued employment.) Update, Friday Dec. 7, 2012, 11:30 AM: A spokesperson for the University of Texas at Austin says the school will update its press release on the review to note that Raymond Orbach will continue as a tenured professor at the University. The spokesperson also says that while Chip Groat had been on leave this year, he was expected to return. Dr. Groat has been on leave since February but the University believed he would be returning, a University spokesperson says in an email to StateImpact Texas. He submitted his resignation letter in late November and it was accepted by the university shortly afterwards at a time when stakeholders had begun to hear what the panel findings might include.