Is funding of polar bear research by Exxon questionable?
In a world where scientists and university officials are discussing "profitability" of their departments, technology transfers and industry cooperations, industry-funded research has increasingly been subject of ethical debates. Now it even seems to have sparked a political debate as well. The US House Committee on Science and Technology is currently investigating ExxonMobil's motives for funding research by an astrophysicist into the impact of climate change on the polar bear population of western Hudson Bay in Canada.
Now anyone familiar with the matter at hand will pause for a moment and raise an eyebrow over the fact that Exxon has chosen an astrophysicist to study the potential fate of a polar marine mammal population, but we will let that one pass for now.
These Exxon-paid researchers, including Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, published their findings as a "viewpoint", which is not peer-reviewed. They conclude that the polar bears are not threatened by climate change (link).
Here is an excerpt of their abstract:
"We found that spring air temperatures around the Hudson Bay basin for the past 70 years (1932–2002) show no significant warming trend and are more likely identified with the large-amplitude, natural climatic variability that is characteristic of the Arctic. Any role of external forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gases remains difficult to identify. We argue, therefore, that the extrapolation of polar bear disappearance is highly premature. Climate models are simply not skilful for the projection of regional sea-ice changes in Hudson Bay or the whole Arctic."
Now two things about that publication raise some more eyebrows: first of all, it is published as a "viewpoint" and thereby excempt from the usual procedure of peer review. It is noting "no significant warming trend...around Hudson Bay", a finding that stands in stark contrast to other studies published in peer-reviewed journals, p.e.
• Comiso, J. C. 2002a. Correlation and trend studies of the sea-ice cover and surface temperatures in the Arctic. Ann. Glaciol, 34:420-428. (link)
• Comiso, J. C. 2002b. A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29:1956 (link)
• Comiso, J. C. 2003. Warming trends in the Arctic from clear-sky satellite observations. J. Clim, 16:3498-3510. (link)
Also, the abstract ends with the following statement:
"Both scientific papers and public discussion that continue to fail to recognize the inherent complexity in the adaptive interaction of polar bears with both human and nature will not likely offer any useful, science-based, preservation and management strategies for the species."
This sounds more like a political statement (read: scientists have an agenda, and so do the media) than the conclusions of a scientific study that - especially in peere-reviewed publications - would try to be as concise and focussed on the data as possible, while avoiding opining and bold statements at all costs.
"It's hard to see this article as rigorous, sound science," writes chair Brad Miller (D) of the subcommittee on investigations and oversight in an open letter to the oil giant.
Now anyone familiar with the matter at hand will pause for a moment and raise an eyebrow over the fact that Exxon has chosen an astrophysicist to study the potential fate of a polar marine mammal population, but we will let that one pass for now.
These Exxon-paid researchers, including Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, published their findings as a "viewpoint", which is not peer-reviewed. They conclude that the polar bears are not threatened by climate change (link).
Here is an excerpt of their abstract:
"We found that spring air temperatures around the Hudson Bay basin for the past 70 years (1932–2002) show no significant warming trend and are more likely identified with the large-amplitude, natural climatic variability that is characteristic of the Arctic. Any role of external forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gases remains difficult to identify. We argue, therefore, that the extrapolation of polar bear disappearance is highly premature. Climate models are simply not skilful for the projection of regional sea-ice changes in Hudson Bay or the whole Arctic."
Now two things about that publication raise some more eyebrows: first of all, it is published as a "viewpoint" and thereby excempt from the usual procedure of peer review. It is noting "no significant warming trend...around Hudson Bay", a finding that stands in stark contrast to other studies published in peer-reviewed journals, p.e.
• Comiso, J. C. 2002a. Correlation and trend studies of the sea-ice cover and surface temperatures in the Arctic. Ann. Glaciol, 34:420-428. (link)
• Comiso, J. C. 2002b. A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29:1956 (link)
• Comiso, J. C. 2003. Warming trends in the Arctic from clear-sky satellite observations. J. Clim, 16:3498-3510. (link)
Also, the abstract ends with the following statement:
"Both scientific papers and public discussion that continue to fail to recognize the inherent complexity in the adaptive interaction of polar bears with both human and nature will not likely offer any useful, science-based, preservation and management strategies for the species."
This sounds more like a political statement (read: scientists have an agenda, and so do the media) than the conclusions of a scientific study that - especially in peere-reviewed publications - would try to be as concise and focussed on the data as possible, while avoiding opining and bold statements at all costs.
"It's hard to see this article as rigorous, sound science," writes chair Brad Miller (D) of the subcommittee on investigations and oversight in an open letter to the oil giant.
Labels: Arctic Stuff, Marine Biology, News, Science Stuff





