Undisclosed industry funding prompts correction of fracking paper

In scientific research papers, it's good to know the author's funding source.

http://retractionwatch.com/2015/05/08/undisclosed-industry-funding-...

Environmental Science & Technology has issued a correction for a March 2015 paper on methane contamination from gas wells after learning that the authors failed to disclose funding from Chesapeake Energy Corp., a major U.S. energy producer.

The paper, “Methane Concentrations in Water Wells Unrelated to Proximity to Exi...,” came from a group led by Donald Siegel, of Syracuse University. The correction states:

The authors thank the Chesapeake Energy Corporation for access to their baseline groundwater data set for NE Pennsylvania and for providing funding for the authors through their organizations of employment, and privately, in the case of the senior author, to do basic research to explore and evaluate this very large data set. ... The lead author was funded privately by Chesapeake for this work.

Views: 548

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack Young on June 1, 2015 at 12:25pm

Virtually every anti-gas study in recent times has been funded by some group opposed to drilling, while the rest of the work in this field typically has industry funding and/or cooperation. It's very hard to analyze a sizeable dataset like the one Chesapeake maintained without some funding - universities don't pay their faculty to spend large amounts of time on projects like this if nobody else is willing to come up with the funding. Indeed, attracting funding is one of the ways academics get ahead in their profession, so when you find an interesting topic in oil and gas you pretty much have to get either one side or the other to back you financially. And admittedly you should disclose that funding fully even if it means that everyone opposed to your conclusion will say you are wrong solely based on that funding.

So Paul, how about telling us what part of the paper itself was incorrect, and how you determined that? Attacking the funding of the authors isn't the same as finding a flaw in the conclusions - if industry or Park Foundation funding was all we needed to see to know whether a paper was correct we could skip a lot of hard work, but if you don't agree with the research you need to explain what's wrong with the paper, not what was wrong with the disclosures.

Assuming you've even read the paper itself, of course.  

Permalink Reply by craig on June 1, 2015 at 2:46pm

Nice try Paul, but there is no correction in the content of the paper as you seemingly state in the thread title.

Bending scenarios with your own words to fit your propaganda isn't a good human quality, which hopefully you will understand... someday.

Permalink Reply by Dan on June 2, 2015 at 12:34am
Looking for things that aren't there tends to make one squint.
Permalink Reply by Barry D on June 2, 2015 at 2:08pm

Duke University also performed a study which had similar results.

The Pennsylvania DEP has also conducted studies on this subject with similar results.

How many more studies with similar results shall I recite Paul before the point gets through to you ?

As craig stated below - the content of the work was never in question.

This is a typical tactic of the leftists anti fossil fuel folks. When you can't have a discussion of an issue based on facts just smear the other side.

Well done Paul, you've earned your leftists credits today.

Oh, by the way, have you shut off your electricity? Stopped driving your car ? Probably not, hypocrite.   Typical leftist.

Permalink Reply by Rich on June 4, 2015 at 1:46pm
Hey Paul the only reason you are on here making undocumented and completely false accusations is because you were either fired by a oil & gas company or you have a lease that your not happy with! Grow up !

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service