Come clean on coal
The Newcastle Herald today ("Come clean on coal", 15 November 2006, p.20) took up my open letter to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Newcastle regarding concerns about possible conflicts of interest and threats to academic independence and integrity arising from coal industry funded research at the university.
The article quoted the university’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), Professor Barney Glover, as saying that the amount of funding in privately backed research arrangements was generally confidential.
The confidentiality of such research funding arrangements reinforces my concerns about the lack of public disclosure and transparency in these matters. Such confidentiality is totally inconsistent with the principles and tradition of free and open academic inquiry, and has the potential to compromise the crucial trust between the public and the academics involved in such research.
The public (as both citizens and taxpayers) is surely entitled to know exactly who is funding any research project involving academics who are working for a public institution such as the University of Newcastle. This is especially so where such funding might be perceived as influencing the views of academics who participate in public debate involving issues affecting the funding provider.
I do appreciate Professor Glover’s point that the university’s research on coal is “on ways of making its combustion cleaner”, and I have no problem at all with the university being involved in such research.
My point here, however, is that if such research is being funded by the coal industry, this could be a factor influencing the views of relevant academics about the role of “clean coal” technologies in future energy policy, especially at a time when the debate is centred around whether such technologies offer an end-point “solution” to climate change (as the coal industry would have us believe), or whether they should be part of a transition in the eventual phasing out of coal as an energy source (as The Greens advocate).
The Newcastle Herald article (by Professor Scott Holmes of the university’s research unit) that prompted my letter supported the position taken by the coal industry. But – despite Professor Holmes’ position as a key university research administrator - the article did not disclose the fact that the university receives significant research funding from the industry that he was defending.
I should add that I am very pleased that what Professor Glover calls the university’s “burgeoning renewable energy research” is involved in “cutting edge” projects. The Greens have always argued that renewable energy is the real solution to a truly sustainable energy future, and I – and other Greens – strongly support any research that takes us toward that objective.
However, the funding sources behind even this research should still be disclosed.
As we have seen in other contexts (e.g, the Cash-for-Comment affairs, developer donations to political parties, etc), significant problems can arise when vested interests intervene without disclosure in public processes that require the highest standards of integrity, accountability and transparency. Academic research is such a process, and its integrity should not be eroded (or even be perceived to be compromised) by any secrecy or lack of full disclosure.
When funding sources are kept confidential, it can create the impression of an attempt to hide the funding source from public view. This, in turn, can raise questions about the motivations for the research, and create the further impression of an attempt to exploit the public trust and credibility associated with academic research for purposes that have more to do with the objectives of the (undisclosed) vested interests, than with the public interest.
If the university has allowed itself to become party to keeping research funding sources confidential (as Professor Glover's response implies), it should rethink such arrangements in the interests of both its public accountability, and the integrity of the academic research process itself.
I intend to raise this matter with both our Federal and State Greens parliamentarians.
In relation to Professor Glover’s point that the university “posted its overall funding contributions and this information was available to the public”, I could not locate such information on the university’s website. Perhaps the response I receive from the university will indicate where I can find this information.
If so, I’ll let blog readers know where they can find it.
See a related article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald.
