January 26, 2010
Corporate Backing for Research? Get Over It
John Tierney in The New York Times:
I find myself in the unfamiliar position of defending Al Gore and his fellow Nobel laureate, Rajendra K. Pachauri. When they won the prize in 2007, they were hailed for their selfless efforts to protect the planet from the ravages of greedy fossil fuel industries. Since then, though, their selflessness has been questioned. Journalists started by looking at the money going to companies and nonprofit groups associated with Mr. Gore, and now they have turned their attention to Dr. Pauchauri, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The I.P.C.C., which is supposed to be the gold standard of peer-reviewed climate science, in 2007 warned of a “very high” likelihood that global warming would cause the Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035. When the Indian government subsequently published a paper concluding there was no solid evidence of Himalayan glaciers shrinking because of global warming, Dr. Pachauri initially dismissed it as “voodoo science” beneath the I.P.C.C.’s standards. But then it came out that the I.P.C.C.’s projection was based not on the latest peer-reviewed evidence, but on speculative comments made a decade ago in a magazine interview by Syed Hasnain, a glaciologist who now works in an Indian research group led by Dr. Pachauri. Last week, the I.P.C.C apologized for the mistake, which was embarrassing enough for Dr. Pachauri. But he also had to contend with accusations of conflict of interest. The Telegraph of London reported that he had a “worldwide portfolio of business interests,” which included relationships with carbon-trading companies and his research group, the Energy and Resources Institute.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 06:07 AM | Permalink



















Comments
Good catch.
It's too bad about the IPCC's tainted PR. Even though the overall message rings true, it's like finding out your favorite politician fathered a love child or got a blow job under the desk. But in addition to the "corporate money" conflict of interest flag there is another... How corporate money exploits public money.
I was angry but not surprised to learn reading background material for the health care reform debate that the tax-supported NIH, which does heavy lifting medical and related research, at one time properly placed the results of those scientific advances into the public domain. But a few years ago they began the practice of "auctioning" those results to the private sector instead. It's an auction in wholesale terms, of course, because you and I don't have that kind of resources, even if we are extravagantly wealthy.
The buyers are drug companies and other corporate giants who then patent those discoveries to market them at good profit margins before they are finally turned over to the public domain where they finally become "generic."
I think they call it free enterprise. But the "free" part applies mostly to corporate giants because they pick low-hanging research fruit leaving the really expensive parts to be paid for by tax money.
Posted by: John Ballard | Jan 26, 2010 7:10:49 AM
Sneering, populist climate science denialism from a self-described Libertarian is nothing shocking, but it should be a bit beneath the New York Times science page. I'm beginning to think the best thing to do is just to sneer back, and keep asking questions about those lovely secondhand robes they've bought from the Emperor.
Leaving aside the question of whether libertarian philosophy is even flexible enough to mount a response to a problem with personalized rewards but socialized consequences, let's make sure we understand why this is denialism, and not skepticism. Climate change "denialism" relies not on a single set of arguments, but on several tiers, whose only commonality is a defense of inaction on the issue:
The scientific consensus on plate tectonics is about as old as I am. It's been around much longer than that, much like our understanding of the greenhouse effect. To certain generations of Americans, though, the Earth never moved. The geological revolution was a boon to oil and gas exploration, and the free market as a whole. If modern climate science had such a rosy picture to offer, would such an unfortunate gap have ever been opened in the last ten years between scientific consensus and public perception?
Posted by: Space Toast | Jan 26, 2010 12:34:03 PM
Post a comment