“Frackademics” – Conclusion


The basis of rational, scientific judgement is evidence, and the framework for how that evidence is assessed and conclusions drawn.

The recent use of scientists to front the case for unconventional gas and oil in Britain is not based on clear, unequivocal evidence. Instead it relies upon the status of those making the claims to substantiate the arguably partial information presented. It is a process driven by a narrow, public relations focus rather than an open investigation of all available evidence.

What is often not stated as part of this process are the conflicting professional or institutional roles or interests of those involved, which create questions about bias. In the case of unconventional gas and oil it raises doubts as to the objectivity and reliability of the claims made.

There is no strong case proving the safety and reliability of ‘fracking’. Instead reference is made to uncertain or unproven mechanisms of ‘regulation’ or ‘best practice’ to remedy any potential problems which may arise. Current Government policy rests upon a set of ‘official’ positions about the safety or efficacy of unconventional gas and oil which were devised some two or three years ago. The validity of these positions, and the Government’s reliance upon certain academic reports to demonstrate their case, is also called into question by this recent body of research.

Reflecting the evidence now available, the best conclusion we can draw on the safety of unconventional gas and oil is that ‘we don’t know the full scope or extent of its impacts’. This was also the result of recent studies by public agencies in New York State and Quebec, as well in other previous studies carried out in other areas where these processes are already under development.

The use of ‘scientists’ to represent the Government and industry case, and the reports they have produced to justify Government policy, raise questions of official bias within the use of science-based evidence. This is highlighted in the six case studies chosen for review in this report:

♦    The Natural Environment Research Council’s Centre for Doctoral Training in Oil and Gas (Case Study 1) is a questionable use of public funding for scientific research. We cannot safely produce the majority of the fossil fuels we know to exist today due to the impacts this would have on the climate. Given the inertia within academia, and the fact that decisions on resource allocation today may result in long-standing commitments to research in certain fields rather than others, it is questionable whether NERC can justify supporting research which champions the discovery and extraction of fossil fuels. Other fields of research are arguably more deserving of this funding to meet future energy and environmental challenges.

♦    The Government’s use of science in support of their policy on shale gas (Case Study 2) raises questions about objectivity in the consideration of evidence. Much of the Government’s case relies on statements which, in light of recent research on the environmental impacts of unconventional gas and oil, are arguably unsound. The fact that these studies all tend to put emphasis on best practice and regulation, without first demonstrating that existing impacts are the result of failures in regulation or practice, also raises questions about their validity.

♦   Of these various reports, the one which stands out is the Mackay-Stone report on the climate impacts of shale gas (Case Study 3). This reports uses arguably unrepresentative data to construct a case for the climate-friendly status of shale gas. In fact, given the range of data available, no such claims can be made. Arguably the impacts are much higher than that stated in the report, and quoted by Government ministers and public figures on numerous occasions since its publication.

♦    The use of these and other statements by scientists, in support of unconventional gas and oil, is further complicated by groups such as the Science Media Centre (Case Study 4). They were set up to ‘promote’ science amongst the public. And yet, when we review the statements they circulate to the media, we find that they are not an accurate appraisal of the available evidence. They create a false certainty about the safety of these processes, and thus mislead the public about the impacts that may result if development took place in Britain.

♦    As a specific example of this use of scientists to mislead public opinion, the Guardian letter (Case Study 5) is a prime example. It is a letter which makes largely economic, not geophysical, claims about shale gas extraction in Lancashire. What is more, the points made in the letter can be shown to be inaccurate or exaggerations of the statistical evidence available. However, through referencing to the positions of the academics who were (whether knowingly or unknowingly) signatories to this letter, the result is that the objective case for unconventional gas and oil is being deliberately misrepresented to the public.

♦    Finally, we can see the planned, deliberate nature of this deception if we look at the public relations industry’s past history of ‘grassroots advocacy’ – and its creation of groups to advance the case for certain developments as part of that advocacy process, so called ‘astroturf’ groups. If we look at recent events in Canada and the USA, and in particular the role of public relations companies such as Edelman, the recently formed Task Force on Shale Gas (Case Study 6) is arguably a front to pass-off the industry’s case for unconventional gas and oil development in Britain. Not only have the members of the Task Force previously expressed positions in support of shale gas development, the organisation behind the Task Force is similar to that of other industry-dominated groups – such as the All Party Parliamentary Group on Unconventional Gas and Oil. As a result the Task Force cannot be considered to be an independent and impartial organisation to represent the public interest.

Over recent years a term has arisen to describe the use of scientists to advance a favourable case for unconventional gas and oil – “frackademics”. What this denotes is not simply the use of spurious claims of scientists to mislead the public. It is also emblematic the acceptance of industry or government financial support for academic institutes who provide the technical credibility for controversial policies. Thus it is not just the content of what is being said that is relevant, but also the context in which/by whom it is being spoken.

We have, from student loans to the part privatisation of our leading science laboratories, a crisis in science funding in Britain. This creates doubt as to the impartiality and objectivity of the information these agencies produce as it introduces a need to represent their clients interests. This doubt has been exacerbated by the Government use of partisan evidence and reports in their promotion of policy. As funding pressures grow, and industries who wish to advance certain special interests come in to fill the gap, we have to ask whether the public can fully trust the use of scientists or scientific evidence in the media.

There is no objective case to support the development of unconventional gas and oil in Britain. At best, reviewing evidence from studies from around the world, what we can say is that there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the scope and severity of impacts from these processes. Therefore the use of scientists by Government and industry to promote a positive view of these technologies is misleading, since in nearly all cases that uncertainty is not being represented to the public. This risks further diminishing the public’s trust in science, as it is increasingly being used to support developments which arguably have an uncertain – but likely negative – impact upon the public’s interests.


Case study 1: University funding and NERC’s CDT for Oil and Gas

Case study 2: Academic involvement in major shale gas studies

Case study 3: The Mackay-Stone shale gas climate impacts study

Case study 4: The Science Media Centre and the ‘seeding’ of articles

Case study 5: Guardian ‘open letter’ from academics

Case study 6: The interrelationship between the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Unconventional Gas and Oil and The Task Force on Shale Gas

Appendix: Information sources for case study diagrams


This report has been commissioned by Talk Fracking

Produced February 2015 by Paul Mobbs Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations
3 Grosvenor Road, Banbury OX16 5HN – http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/

© 2015 Paul Mobbs/Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations
Released under the The Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 2.0 Licence (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 UK) – England & Wales – http://www.fraw.org.uk/files/fraw/by_nc_sa-uk-2.html

All Internet links listed in this report were accessed during late January/early February 2015.

Comments: 3,136

  • tadalafil online pharmacy
    February 25, 2020 3:43 am

    fast sale [url=http://cialisles.com/#]tadalafil online pharmacy[/url] much professor essentially leave best price cialis online
    aside internal tadalafil online pharmacy suddenly gather http://cialisles.com

  • cialis
    February 24, 2020 10:02 pm

    You suggested it really well. levitra prix

  • acheter viagra
    February 24, 2020 6:20 am

    Kudos. I value this! viagra sans ordonnance

  • Clemson
    February 23, 2020 5:26 pm

    I’m not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your blogs really nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back in the future. All the best|


  • viagra en ligne
    February 23, 2020 3:02 pm

    Awesome postings. Thank you. levitra prix

  • Johnny Ioni
    February 23, 2020 11:30 am

    This is a very compelling post. Check my purlieus click this site

  • escape room αθηνα
    February 23, 2020 6:06 am

    I was suggested this web site by my cousin. I’m not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my difficulty. You are amazing! Thanks!|


  • Sallygteu
    February 23, 2020 2:55 am

    The product is taken in by tearing open the jelly sachet and squeezing the liquid into the mouth or into a spoon and swallow it, after that you can also drink a glass of water. Now all men with serious impotence problems can be prescribed the drug. In case you loved this article and you would like to receive much more information with regards to viagra online kindly visit our own webpage. Sildenafil in Kamagra Oral Jelly inhibits the action of PDE5 which deals with impotence by permitting the natural procedure of sexual stimulation to turn on the cGMP system for achieving and maintaining an erection.

  • Sallygteu
    February 23, 2020 2:54 am

    Ultram is one of the most common and effective medical treatments for premature ejaculation. However, Ultram is perfect for immediate relief. Should you have any kind of concerns regarding where in addition to tips on how to use cheap viagra, you possibly can email us on the web page. However, all these carry side effects and other related health issues. Statistical analysis showed that out of every 1,000 diabetic men with ED, 19.7 could be expected to experience a CHD event each year, as compared to only 9.5 of 1,000 diabetic men without ED. In earlier days, when men used to have no medicinal alternative to treat their sexual problems, they seek help from natural remedies.

  • Sallygteu
    February 23, 2020 2:54 am

    Try to take this medicine at the same time each day. “The breakthrough was enormous,” says Amin Herati, MD, assistant professor of urology and director of male infertility and men’s health at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. If you loved this short article and you would certainly such as to obtain even more info relating to viagra for sale kindly browse through the web site. Alright, a few quick points before fanboys go cheap acomplia; soma online,; buy accutane online; acomplia online; proscar; buy acomplia; purchase horny goat weed,; viagra without a. Today marks the fourth month since kian s arrest he has now been in evin prison herbal viagra reviews buying viagra online in uk buy prescription levitra delivered soma accutane.

  • Sallygteu
    February 23, 2020 2:53 am

    Excessive weight gain was previously noted only in the middle-aged and old people, but nowadays even the young and small kids are noted to suffering with the problem of obesity. If you have any thoughts about exactly where and how to use viagra for sale, you can get in touch with us at our own page. In small kids the excessive weight gain is noted due to the hereditary. The unhealthy lifestyle that we are into is the cause of the excessive weight gain among the people. You need to control the weight gain in order to stay away from these various health complications.

  • Sallygteu
    February 23, 2020 2:53 am

    Since the blockbuster launch of Pfizer’s Viagra in 1998, dozens of therapies have been studied for so-called female sexual dysfunction, an umbrella term for various problems with libido, arousal and orgasm. In case you have virtually any questions concerning where by along with tips on how to work with buy viagra, you possibly can email us on the webpage. The effort to trigger sexual interest through brain chemistry is the drug industry’s latest attempt to address women’s sexual problems.

  • viagra generique livre sous 48h
    February 22, 2020 9:08 pm

    Awesome advice. Thank you. viagra prix en pharmacie france

  • viagra
    February 22, 2020 8:08 pm

    ever rush [url=http://viacheapusa.com/#]viagra[/url] any
    championship thus wealth generic viagra sales roughly dress
    viagra basically slide http://viacheapusa.com/

  • viagra pills 100 mg
    February 22, 2020 11:28 am

    personally trainer generic viagra sales literally buyer generic
    viagra 100mg generally suspect generic viagra sales clean beyond [url=http://viagenupi.com/#]generic viagra
    sales[/url] finally traffic generic viagra sales instead relation http://viagenupi.com/

  • cialis sans ordonnance
    February 22, 2020 6:41 am

    Cheers. Loads of posts. viagra sans ordonnance

Post a Comment