On March 26, 2015, nine researchers published a study in the Environmental Science and Technologyjournal entitled “Impact of Natural Gas Extraction on PAH Levels in Ambient Air.” The study concluded that there may be a link between hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and an increased risk of cancer. According to one of the authors, “Air pollution from fracking operations may pose an under-recognized health hazard to people living near them.”

At the time of publication, the Independent Petroleum Association of America raised concerns about the study’s objectivity and methods:

To sum up, the study’s volunteers were spearheaded by a known anti-fracking group; the report completely ignores the likely higher-than-normal emissions from other sources; and, the researchers even admit that their work is “not statistically significant” because their sample size was too small and not random. Instead of garnering headlines promoting fear, the report should be notable for its glaring gaps in research.

On June 29, 2016—more than a year after publication—the authors retracted the study after discovering a calculation error. “PAH air concentrations reported in the original article are . . . incorrect. Correcting this error changes air concentrations significantly relative to those reported in the published article . . . [and] some of the conclusions reported in the original article.”

A May 13, 2015 article entitled “Fracking may affect air quality, human health” remains online in its original form. A second article “Fracking may cause air pollution, respiratory issues” now contains an “update” reflecting the retraction of the study. However, the “update” is not published on the homepage of the website, which reportedly reaches millions of readers in Latin America. This “update” may correct the record for readers who subsequently find the article on Google, but does little to remedy the impression formed by readers at the time of publication.

The situation highlights the limits of a retraction. If the evidence reveals that the study was a planned attack by a competitor, trade associations, like the Independent Petroleum Association of America, have a number of tools at their disposal to restore the reputations of their members, including deceptive trade practice and trade libel claims. Even where a trade association is not individually injured, the association may still bring a defamation claim on behalf of its members (so-called “representational” or “associational” standing) where (1) the lawsuit falls within the trade association’s mission, and (2) the challenged conduct is equally detrimental to all members of the association. Reputation is only restored where the retraction of the discredited study replaces the study itself in the permanent record. 

http://breakingenergy.com/2016/07/14/researchers-retract-findings-r...