Natural Gas Fracking Industry May Be Paying Off Scientists • Hacker News Board

Re: Natural Gas Fracking Industry May Be Paying Off Scientists

#11

Post by roc » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 4:49 PM UTC

sageikosa wrote: post #10

roc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The relevant question isn't whether fracking can be safe. It's whether fracking is safe, as practiced. And that's what's purportedly being studied. And what the article alleges is likely being perverted by corporate contributions. After all, we know that drilling for oil can be acceptably safe. And we also know that in the absence of effective oversight, some drillers will lean as far from safety and caution as is ec…

I agree that the science behind any analysis is what is important, and not the nationality of the researcher, nor the paternity of the researcher, nor the existence of money that the researcher may have had direct or indirect connections to. The original article was focused on scientists having a pathway to corporate funds, and the original poster in this thread began what I can only see as a rant against scientists…

> "My points were made to hopefully paint a "rebuttal" image that scientists may come to conclusions different than a prevailing crusade"

Absolutely; we don't disagree on that point.

I was just taking the opportunity to illuminate a common misconception. (That we're still talking about whether it's-inherently-unsafe or not.)

Re: Natural Gas Fracking Industry May Be Paying Off Scientists

#12

Post by sseveran » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 5:01 PM UTC

Having been involved in both industry funded and government funded medical research I don't think this is a big deal. To me the most important thing is to make sure that it is disclosed. Many researchers that are great at what they do are highly sought after experts and they should be. The real question is one of integrity. If a researcher has integrity then they will be objective. If they lack integrity then they may be more willing to twist their findings, even if they don't outright manipulate them. It does no good for a company to fund a researcher who is ultimately proved to have faked data.

One note on public funding, I believe that there is just as much if not more pressure to shape conclusions from public funding sources. After all these organizations are composed of people as well who are often pursuing an agenda of some sort whether its overt or not. If a researcher is dependent on funding from an agency or a group inside an agency it is often in their best interest to ensure that their conclusions align with that agencies view. If not there is significant risk to future funding.

Re: Natural Gas Fracking Industry May Be Paying Off Scientists

#13

Post by CWuestefeld » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 5:03 PM UTC

sageikosa wrote: post #8

CWuestefeld wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way did this comment deserve a downvote. It's at least as thoughtful as the comment it replied to. This would appear to be downvoting as "I don't like your opinion", as opposed to "you're not adding any value to the conversation". Addressing the concern of the actual article: The fact is that you can't escape from having researchers having some kind of tie to their subject matter, on one side of an issue or anothe…

I'll add a couple of things I didn't originally. First, the operations around fracking do involve risk and the potential for contamination, the same way as drilling any other hole (sealed or unsealed) in the ground, through a water table; and there are already numerous regulations and licenses (and rights issues) involved with these, but typically the fracking injection process itself is fairly well insulated from ca…

As the owner of a largish block of land on top of the Marcellus shale, I've got an interest in this, and I've been watching the discussion carefully.

The two biggest areas of concern that I've heard are (1) the possibility of releasing methane into drinking water sources; and (2) the manner in which the used water and fracking fluid will be disposed of.

As you note, #1 isn't specifically a fracking thing, but related to any deep, powerful disturbance of the ground.

From what I've read, #2 is generally OK, but marred by occasional malfeasance. (It's difficult to write regulations to deal with people who are, by definition, breaking the regulations.) But I've also read that there are newer methods of fracking being tried, that don't need the same sorts of chemicals, or quantities.

Re: Natural Gas Fracking Industry May Be Paying Off Scientists

#14

Post by malandrew » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 6:01 PM UTC

sseveran wrote: post #12

Having been involved in both industry funded and government funded medical research I don't think this is a big deal. To me the most important thing is to make sure that it is disclosed. Many researchers that are great at what they do are highly sought after experts and they should be. The real question is one of integrity. If a researcher has integrity then they will be objective. If they lack integrity then they ma…

It seems to me like funding should be "double blind" by having all participants on both sides of an issue that want research performed to funnel the money into a general purpose fund. Scientists should not know where the money is coming from, and industry shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which scientists do the research so there is equal chance of funding people with opposing viewpoints of what industry wants people to here.

AFAICT most corruption can be mitigated by clean interfaces that reduce if not eliminate conflicts of interest.

Re: Natural Gas Fracking Industry May Be Paying Off Scientists

#15

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 6:02 PM UTC

There is more to objectivity than where the funding comes from.

The discussion of whether cell phone radios cause brain cancer is instructive. There are many people who do not fully understand the physics involved, but tend to be suspicious of technology and industry, who continue to bang the drum about the dangers of cell phone use. I've had conversations with a friend who holds a Ph.D. in toxicology in which no amount of data I could reference could shake her conviction that cell phones cause brain cancer. That is not because of where she draws a paycheck. It is simply a belief she has developed.

You see the same thing in any discussion of large-scale energy technology. We've all seen the discussions of nuclear energy here on Hacker News, for instance.

Is fracking dangerous? It seems almost certain it could be--any type of engineering on such a large scale has that potential. But there are almost always safer ways to engineer things. And a balanced accounting should attempt to include the benefit that natural gas as an energy source can create for our society. For example, it burns a lot cleaner than coal. This is the aspect of energy development that is most often hand-waved away, in favor of assertions that we should be 100% renewables. Of course solar, wind, and hydro all create their own safety and environmental concerns too.