| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« A Little While | Main | Free Nazia Quazi »

January 26, 2010

Corporate Backing for Research? Get Over It

John Tierney in The New York Times:

Research 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:

1. I don't "believe" in climate change, because of X,Y, Z
2. If you show that X,Y,Z are invalid, I will find new arguments U,V,W
3. If you demolish U,V,W, I will say that even if climate change is happening, there is no evidence that it is anthropogenic because of A,B,C
4. A,B,C become D,E,F through the same process that produced U,V,W
5. When D,E,F fall, I will argue that there's no evidence that it will be harmful
6. When harm is shown, I will pass the buck to the next generation, assuming they will invent some whiz-bang technology to reverse the damage
7. Why, under Libertarian philosophy, anyone in the future would undertake a massive program whose only benefits are social will remain unasked; presumably in the future Libertarians will remain a fringe minority

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






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Al on Franzen, Wallace and the Question of Realism

aguy109 on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

aguy109 on The Pathology of Stabilisation in Complex Adaptive Systems

Ken Pidcock on How to win a fight against twenty children

Erich on How to win a fight against twenty children

reader on How to win a fight against twenty children

Carlos on Franzen, Wallace and the Question of Realism

Janet Kerr on Olivia Chaney -Aupres de ma Blonde

omar on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

j_93 on Sanctions Don’t Promote Democratic Change

droog on How to win a fight against twenty children

Mike Cope on Sanctions Don’t Promote Democratic Change

Dredd on Sanctions Don’t Promote Democratic Change

Louise Gordon on How to win a fight against twenty children

Seyma on Snowboarding at Night

aguy109 on Whitney Houston: Didn't we almost have it all

aguy109 on Matzo ball memories

j_93 on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

Mike H. on Whitney Houston: Didn't we almost have it all

Jim on the tyrant's wife

Evert Cilliers on Why Is the Amazing Movie Directed by Angelina Jolie not on the Oscar List?

modernguy(NeanderthalGuy) on Why Is the Amazing Movie Directed by Angelina Jolie not on the Oscar List?

aguy109 on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

Orla Schantz on Bubbles: Spheres, Volume I: Microspherology

Kabir on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed