Big Oil Threatens University Freedoms

8/9/2019 Big Oil Threatens University Freedoms

1/33

Big Oil U.

Center for Science in the Public Interest


2/33

Acknowledgements

Te Integrity in Science Project o the Center or Science in the Public Interest grate ullyacknowledges the nancial support o the Beldon Foundation, the Richard and RhodaGoldman Fund, the Rocke eller Family Fund, the Saperstein Family Fund, the ArkayFoundation, and the Nathan Cummings Foundation.

Tis report was co-written by Integrity in Science project director Merrill Goozner andormer program manager Eryn Gable. Design by Debra Brink.

Copyright 2008 by Center or Science in the Public Interest

Te Center or Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), ounded in 1971, is a nonpro t health-advocacy organization. CSPI conducts innovative research and advocacy programs in the areas o nutrition, ood sa ety, alcoholic beverages, and provides consumers with current in ormation abouttheir own health and well-being. Te Integrity in Science Project exposes con icts o interest in theconduct o science and seeks to reduce their in uence on the scienti c literature and public policy.

CSPI is supported by almost 900,000 subscribers in the United States and Canada to its Nutrition Action Healthletter and by oundation grants.

1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, #300 Washington, DC 20009

Ph: 202-332-9110 ax: 202-265-4954 www.cspinet.org

www.integrityinscience.org


3/33

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary ............................................................................................v

Te Origins O University-Industry Alliances ............................................1

Big Oil U. ..............................................................................................................3

Moving oward Big Oil U. ...............................................................................5

No Strings Attached ..........................................................................................7

Controlling Collaborations .............................................................................9

Recommendations .......................................................................................... 15

University Programs Dont Make Up For Te Short all ........................ 17

Appendix A Te Programs ...................................................................... 21

Appendix B Survey Questions ................................................................ 22

Appendix C Survey Responses ............................................................... 22

Notes .................................................................................................................. 23


4/33


5/33

Big Oil U.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAs the scienti c consensus surrounding climate change has solidi ed, the oil,gas, coal, and electricity industries have reluctantly recognized the inevitabilityo political action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most energy companiesare distancing themselves rom campaigns to discredit global warming sci-ence. Instead, some actually have begun unding university research aimed atdeveloping technologies and exploring policies that address the global warming crisis. Tey are touting the programs in slick public relations campaigns, includ-ing ull page advertisements in the nations leading newspapers.

Tis report documents that some o the universities that have agreed to hostthese e orts are accepting extensive industry controls over the research process controls that violate hallowed traditions o academic independence. Indeed,industry unding or energy research has come with so many strings attachedthat it threatens the academic reedom o researchers and has the potential tocompromise the integrity o the research.

While any agreements that compromise academic independence are deplorable,universities that allow energy rms to exert inappropriate controls over the useo their grants have sold their academic birthright at an extremely low price. Forover a quarter century, industry has sharply reduced its investment in its ownenergy research and development, especially in alternative technologies that would reduce U.S. dependence on carbon-emitting uels. Te university-based programs that have been established in recent years will do little to redress thisimbalance. Indeed, these programs amount to little more than a g lea or largecorporations seeking to green their image.

Since 1991, the major oil companies have committed to investing more than$792 million in at least nine major universities in the United States. Leading institutions like MI , Stan ord, Princeton, and the University o Cali orniaat Berkeley have major collaborative research agreements with the energyindustry.

Tis study identi ed ve major limitations on academic reedom that are occur-ring in the nine programs. Tey include:

l Allowing company representati es on governing boards(6 universities)

l Giving industry sponsors frst rights to intellectual property (5 universities)

Universities areaccepting extensive

industry controlsover the researchprocess controlsthat violate hal-lowed traditions o academic indepen-dence.


6/33

iBig Oil U.

l Allowing industry sponsors a role indeciding what research projects are

unded (6 universities)l Permitting industry re iew o researchbe ore it is published (5 universi-

ties)

l Allowing companies todelay publication o research results(5 universities)

For example:

l o manage British Petroleums grant o $500 million over 10 years to theUniversity o Cali ornia at Berkeley, the University o Illinois, and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, Berkeleys Energy Biosciences Institute set 10-member panel, which includes two scientists rom BP, to review all g proposals; that groups nal list o potential grantees is then submitted to8-member governance board made up o our BP o cials and our univsity o cials, e ectively giving either BP or the university veto power ovethe direction o the program.

l Stan ord Universitys 10-year, $225 million Global Climate and EnergyProject, unded by ExxonMobil, oyota, General Electric, and oil servicegiant Schlumberger, gives an exclusive, ve-year royalty- ree license to companies that und any research that leads to a university-patented invetion. Researchers at 20 universities outside Stan ord have applied or gra

rom the program, thus extending this restriction ar beyond Stan ords walls.

l Te Georgia Institute o echnologys 5-year, $12 million grant rom Cheron Corp. or bio uels research eschews open competition or grants angives the company o cials the nal review or every project unded by program. Its their money, said Roger Webb, a retired pro essor o eleccal engineering who runs the program at Georgia ech.

l Chevrons 5-year, $25 million grant to the University o Cali ornia at Daalso or bio uels research, gives the company three to our months to reresearch results to remove con dential business in ormation and to ident potential intellectual property worthy o ling or patents.

Tese encroachments on academic reedom have the potential to exact a heavtoll. Tere have been numerous instances in the recent past where companiesthat unded university-based research have used research reviews to suppres


7/33

iiBig Oil U.

studies that produced unwanted results or uncovered signi cant health threats

rom an industrial product; insisted on long delays prior to publication; anddeleted or ignored data that contradicted the results that were eventually pub-lished.1

Moreover, inappropriate industry demands can cause universities to lose somecontrol o their research agendas and become more like business enterprisesthan generators o knowledge. Universities should stoutly resist any e ort bya corporate sponsor either to restrict the in ormal interchange o ideas withintheir institution or to keep results secret or more than two or three monthsafer the research has ended, ormer Harvard University president Derek Bok

wrote. Tey should oppose equally strongly any attempt by sponsoring rmsto control the data, in uence the design, or participate in writing up the resultso any research project conducted by members o the university.2

As universities become more commercialized, there is less space to per orm re-search that is critical o industry or challenges the conventional wisdom. In the

eld o energy research, this is particularly important since the energy industryhas a major stake in continuing our reliance on ossil uels or politically popularsubstitutes like bio uels that do not threaten the status quo.

Academic reedom requires that university researchers be ree to ollow theirresearch wherever it leads them. Sheldon Krimsky, a ufs University pro essor who has studied the role o corporations in biomedical research, notes that giv-ing the sponsors input or control over what questions are being asked and whosanswering them could damage the quality o research. Its when they ask, Can you write the research in a certain way?, that it takes away the autonomy o theresearchers, and many researchers are per ectly willing to trade that away so thatthey can get unding, Krimsky said.3

Tere is an inherent con ict between the interests o universities and theinterests o corporations. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich noted recently,Corporations obviously are interested in making proprietary, that is . . . having as their personal property, whatever intellectual capital is generated rom theirsponsorship, but academic reedom indeed, the li e o the mind depends onthe ree ow o in ormation.4 Although universities and corporations ofen de-

end these programs on the basis that they have similar goals and complemen-tary knowledge, the act is that the interests o universities and corporationscan diverge. University research is supposed to work toward the common good.Corporate research is primarily aimed at maximizing pro ts.

There is an inherentconfict between

the interests o universities and theinterests o corpora-tions.


8/33

iiiBig Oil U.

Tis report documents that, despite the industrys e orts to spin their academi

alliances as proo o their commitment to tackling climate change by investing in new technologies, the major oil and gas companies still spend less thaone percent o their sales on research and development. Industry investmentR&D ell rom $4 billion in 1985 (2002 constant dollars) to $1 billion in 20Te new university collaborations all well short o making up the di erence

As public awareness and anxiety about global warming has risen, the oil, coaauto and electric utility industries have reduced their investment in pro es-sional skeptics who downplay industrys responsibility or the problem. Insttheyve begun investing in academic research institutions, both as a technolo

cal hedge against rapid changes in the global energy mix and as a public reltions ploy to show their concern about the problem.

Yet industrys investment amounts to ar less than is advertised. Energy rmremain among the least research and development-intensive among all in-dustrial sectors. A typical oil company spends 20 times more or searching and exploiting new oil reserves than it does or seeking out alternatives to itsmainstay products, reducing pollution or increasing the e ciency o the use carbon-based uels.5 Its overall R&D budgets are just a raction o what lead-ing high-tech industries like biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and in ormatio

technology spend.Te carbon-dependent industries have lavished intense public relations atten-tion on these modest university R&D programs. Teir modest size and modesgoals raise serious questions about whether universities have paid too high aintellectual price or the relatively ew dollars they have brought in rom thcorporate sources.


9/33

Big Oil U.

THE ORIGINS OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY ALLIANCESTe energy industrys oray into university-based research ollows a path pioneered by biotechnology and manu acturing industries in the early 1980s.Because the oil and gas companies strategy and tactics mimic those industries playbooks, it is use ul to examine brie y the origins o university-industry alli-ances.

Collaboration between universities and industry is not new. Te 1861 charterestablishing the Massachusetts Institute o echnology (MI ) called on the

school to aid the advancement, development, and practical application o science in connection with arts, agriculture, manu actures, and commerce.6 Te nations public land-grant universities have rom their start in 1862 orgedclose ties with agriculture and agriculture-oriented industries. But, except ora ew engineering and science-oriented schools like MI , most universities didnot actively seek major partnerships with industry until the late 1970s, whenAmerican universities began to view such relationships as a way to address con-cerns about increased competition with Japan and other countries.7 At the sametime, industry was also becoming more interested in orging ties with universi-ties, believing that such connections would give them access to cutting-edgeresearch at what amounted to bargain prices.8 As Edward E. David, president o the Exxon Research and Engineering Co. and ormer science adviser to Presi-dent Nixon, commented in a 1979Sciencearticle, Te time has come or acloser and more intimate relationship between industry and academia.9

Tose more intimate relations were ostered by the University Small Busi-ness Patent Procedures Act o 1980, commonly known as the Bayh-Dole Act.Responding to concerns that America was lagging behind other nations inscienti c research, the law sought to encourage more collaboration betweenuniversities and industry by allowing universities to patent and license theirgovernment- unded discoveries.10 Previously, government- unded scienti cadvances that resulted in patentable technologies were placed in the publicdomain. Tat provided little incentive or an individual rm to commercializea technology since competitors could easily piggy-back on its R&D investmentand market comparable products. Te result was that many government- und-ed advances never ound their way into the commercial marketplace.

Te legislation revolutionized university administrators attitudes about the


10/33

Big Oil U.

patenting o knowledge and the commercialization o science. Not only we

pro essors on campus encouraged to patent their inventions and start up rmbut major companies saw an opportunity to orge research collaborations wiuniversity administrators and university-based scientists who were suddenly

reed rom the traditional norm that academies remain ree o commercial uence. By the early 1980s, dozens o multi-year, multi-million dollar contr

had been announced: DuPont gave $6 million to the Harvard Medical Schooor genetic research; Hoechst, the West German chemical giant, doled out $5

million to the Massachusetts General Hospital or medical research; 10 comnies contributed $7.5 million or a new computer center at Stan ord; ControData, Burroughs, and Minnesota Mining and Manu acturing (3M) pledged uto $5 million or computer research at the University o Minnesota; and Exx

nanced an $8 million project on combustion research at MI .11

Nowhere has the commercialization o American universities been moreevident than in the li e sciences and biomedicine, where pro essors increasiserve as consultants or and sit on the advisory boards o drug manu actur-ers, as well as ounding medical and agricultural biotechnology start-ups anresearch joint ventures. An early and controversial example was the $25-mill

ve-year alliance between the giant Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis andthe University o Cali ornia at Berkeley. Te agreement granted Novartis rsright to licenses on about one-third o the Department o Plant and MicrobiBiologys discoveries, including those that were unded partially by ederaland state money, and granted the biomedical rm two o ve seats on thedepartments research committee, which determined the allocation o resear

unds.12 Te deal created a uror on campus and culminated in a controversyover whether one o the deals chie critics, Ignacio Chapela, was denied ten

or political reasons.13 An external review conducted by Michigan State Uni- versity researchers called the Berkeley-Novartis alliance, which expired in 2 with ew tangible bene ts to the company, outside the mainstream or rese

contracts with industry and concluded that there appears to be little ratio-nale or repeating the approach.14 Yet, the Berkeley-Novartis-style deal wouldbe repeated again, not just by biotechnology companies, but also by energycompanies seeking to green their images by unding research on solutionsclimate change.


11/33

Big Oil U.

BIG OIL U.In the late 1980s, when the issue o global warming was just becoming part o the public dialogue, there was vigorous scienti c debate about the magnitudeo the problem and how much blame to assign to human activities. Despitemore than a century o research on the relationship between carbon dioxideand climate, the scienti c evidence that human activities, and speci cally emis-sions o greenhouse gases, were a ecting earths climate was just beginning tocrystallize. Many scientists argued that urther research was required be ore any

rm conclusions could be drawn.15

Not surprisingly, energy, automotive, and other industrial companies, con-cerned about the potential repercussions or their businesses, quickly moved tore ute the then-emerging science regarding the role o human activities spe-ci cally greenhouse gases produced by burning ossil uels in climate change.Te ront organization or these e orts was the Global Climate Coalition(GCC), a group ormed in 1989, and comprised o a whos who o Americanbusinesses that either produced or consumed ossil uels. GCC was run outo the National Association o Manu acturers. Te coalition emphasized theuncertainties in climate science and sought to thwart government action toaddress the problem.16 Te coalition challenged the need or action on global

warming by denying its existence and calling it a natural phenomenon.17 Butthese arguments would become more di cult or the coalition to make by thelate 1990s, as the research on climate science became more de nitive.

By 1997, scienti c understanding that human-caused emissions o greenhousegases were causing global warming led to the Kyoto Protocol, an amendmentto the international treaty on climate change that required signatory nationsto reduce these heat-trapping gases. In response to the strength o the scienti cconsensus on global warming and the international commitment to addressit, leading oil companies such as British Petroleum, Shell, and exaco changed

their stance on climate science and lef the Global Climate Coalition.18 Aferthe U.S. rejected global e orts to implement the Kyoto Protocol, the coalitiondisbanded, noting that action on climate change was heading in the direction o developing new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.19

But even as most o the worlds major energy companies began to accept the sci-ence behind global warming, at least one company remained highly skeptical.ExxonMobil, led by long-time CEO Lee Raymond, created a small task orce

Today, an energycompany and a

leading universityshare a commongoal. The commongood.

ExxonMobil Ad Campaign, 2006


12/33

Big Oil U.

called the Global Climate Science eam that invested millions o dollars i

disin ormation campaign.20

Between 1998 and 2005 (the most recent year or which company gures are publicly available), ExxonMobil gave more thanmillion to organizations that promoted the idea that global warming was a hoand otherwise manu actured uncertainty about climate science.21 Tese groupsincluded well-known conservative think tanks, such as the American EnterprInstitute, Cato Institute, and Competitive Enterprise Institute, as well as suchlesser-known organizations as the Atlantic Legal Foundation, Committee orConstructive omorrow, Heartland Institute, and ech Central Station. Exx-onMobil became the single largest corporate donor or some o these groupaccounting or more than 10 percent o their annual budgets.22 Te groups then

unneled the money to a corps o committed climate skeptics, including SalBaliunas, Willie Soon, David R. Legates, Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Ball Jr., S. Fred Singer, Richard S. Lindzen, and John Christy.

Although many o these skeptics have not published in the peer-reviewed scenti c literature or years, they continue to be cited in the popular press, ofe without any re erence to either their industry unding or the industry undino the think tanks that sponsored their work. For example, an Associated Prearticle that ran in theWashington Post in October 2006 allowed Michaels todismiss local communities e orts to combat global warming without reportithat, as a previous July 2006 AP report noted, Michaels recently received atleast $150,000 in donations and pledges rom Colorado-based electric utiliincluding the Intermountain Rural Electric Association.23 Michaels is also a li-ated with 20 organizations that have received unding rom ExxonMobil.24


13/33

Big Oil U.

MOVING TOWARD BIG OIL U.As scienti c understanding o the role o human activities in global climatechange evolved, most energy companies began to understand that it was es-sential to their uture survival that they actively und and participate in researchaimed at developing cleaner technologies or cleaning up existing ossil ueltechnologies. Te rst major industry-sponsored research project was estab-lished in 1991 at MI , with the ounding o the universitys Joint Programon the Science and Policy o Global Change.25 Te program combined two pre-existing research centers the Center or Global Change Science and theCenter or Energy and Environmental Policy Research and concerned itsel

primarily with the intersection o the natural and social sciences aspects o climate change. o this day, the program relies on a combination o governmentand industrial sponsors, including American Electric Power, Chevron Corp.,ExxonMobil Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., and Shell Petro-leum.26

Te second major corporate climate change research e ort at a universitystarted in 1995, when Carnegie Mellon University launched the Center orIntegrated Study o the Human Dimensions o Global Change. Like the MI program, Carnegie Mellons center relied on government and corporate sup-

port, including the Electric Power Research Institute, American PetroleumInstitute, and Exxon, and was primarily interested in looking at the natural andhuman dimensions o global climate change.27 Te center disbanded in 2004.28

One o the key eatures o both o these projects was their ocus on energy policy, not technology development. Tey did not produce patentable inven-tions and their research results and papers became part o the public domain.Grants were not conditioned on overt control over the research agenda. Temix o sponsors enabled recipients to claim that since there was no single und-ing source or any study, the sponsors did not exert much in uence over the

direction o research.One o the great things about our program is that were not dependent on anyone source or our unding, said Henry Jacoby, a co-director o MI s Center

or Energy and Policy Research.29 Not once did EPRI, API, or Exxon-MobilEducation Foundation try to in uence the direction o the research we do,averred Hadi Dowlatabadi, the ormer director o the program at CarnegieMellon.30 Tese comments, common among industry- unded researchers, may


14/33

Big Oil U.

be sincere but ignored the body o social science evidence that has demonst

ed that even small gifs can have a power ul in uence over peoples behavio31

For instance, at MI , whose corporate support comes rom a number o maelectric utility companies, two o the three latest major reports on the utureo energy technology ocused on the need to promote carbon sequestration maintain coal as a viable option in a carbon-constrained world, and eliminatiroadblocks to the success ul deployment o more nuclear power plants.32 It has yet to issue reports on solar, wind or other non-polluting electricity-generatintechnologies other than geothermal.


15/33

Big Oil U.

NO STRINGS ATTACHED

In this decade, most o the subtleties surrounding industrys in uence over itsuniversity grants disappeared as energy companies switched their ocus to investing in research programs ocused on nding speci c technologies or reduc-ing greenhouse gas emissions. Te earliest major program o this type was the2000 Carbon Mitigation Initiative, a 10-year, $20-million project at PrincetonUniversity sponsored by BP and Ford.33 At the time, it was the largest corporategrant that Princeton had ever received.34

Unlike the programs at MI and Carnegie Mellon, Princetons Carbon Mitiga-tion Initiative speci cally sought to address the carbon problem by identi y-ing technologies that are sa e, e ective, and a ordable.35 For example, the programs capture group looks at technologies or capturing carbon dioxideemissions rom ossil uels, as well as alternative uel combustion.36 But the program also examines how natural sources and sinks o carbon will respond to

uture climatic change and explores the policy implications o di erent carbonmitigation strategies.37 One o the projects major initiatives has been promot-ing the wedge concept, a hypothesis that suggests the worlds carbon emissionscould be kept at until 2056 only through a combination o available technolo-gies, with each one reducing the projected growth in carbon dioxide emissions

by 25 billion tons over 50 years.38

Princetons program also includes strict guidelines that are intended to ensureits researchers independence. For example, the agreement establishing theinitiative stipulates that representatives o the sponsor companies cannot sit onits advisory boards, ensuring that program decisions are made independently,said Stephen Pacala, a biology pro essor who co-directs the Carbon MitigationInitiative with Princeton physicist Robert Socolow. We decide what were go-ing to do, Pacala said.39

Te BP agreement is part o a university-wide policy against accepting unding with strings attached, according to Michelle Christy, Princetons director o research and project administration. Te university protects itsel rom accept-ing unding that has requirements or undertaking a speci c type o researchby using both legal and contractual means, she wrote.40

Princeton also requires its aculty and research sta to ll out orms on an an-nual basis disclosing outside unding sources and potential con icts o interest,according to Christy. Te orms are reviewed by a Con ict o Interest Commit-


16/33

Big Oil U.

tee comprised o senior aculty and sta and chaired by the dean or resear

Any non-con orming situations are adjudicated and modi ed as necessary comply with University policy, she wrote.

Christy noted that the relationship with BP and Ford is much like otherresearch undertaken at the university with such government unders as theNational Science Foundation and the Energy Department. BP and these othsimilar organizations request proposals or research in a speci c area o intthat is discovery-based, not outcome-based, Christy wrote. Our aculty the prepares proposals or a particular eld o research, and the institution endothat this work is appropriate to be done here at Princeton.

Tis structure has allowed CMI researchers to work on broader issues thatarent in the direct nancial interests o the sponsors. For instance, Pacala is working on a new way to model vegetation, one o the biggest uncertaintiesclimate change models.

Additionally, since the programs technological ocus is more geared towardcomparing di erent technologies than inventing new ones, Princeton has beeable to avoid the sticky issues o patenting and licensing. Princeton spokeswan Cass Cliatt said CMI does not have any patents pending or issued.41

CMI researchers meet once a year with their sponsors to make a progressreport. Also present at the annual meeting is a six-person external advisory cmittee, which is comprised o academics such as Franklin M. Orr Jr., Stan oUniversity pro essor o energy resource management, and representatives ooutside interest groups such as the Natural Resources De ense Council and tElectric Power Research Institute.42


17/33

Big Oil U.

CONTROLLING COLLABORATIONS

Princetons Carbon Mitigation Initiative could have been a model or universi-ties seeking to protect the reedom o their researchers when accepting corpo-rate money, but all o the programs that ollowed chose a di erent path.

Te next major corporate-sponsored energy research program at a universitycame in 2002, when ExxonMobil, oyota, General Electric, and oil service

rm Schlumberger created the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) atStan ord University. At the time, the 10-year, $225 million pledge was greaterthan all industrial grants to Stan ord over the previous 10 years.43 Te programimmediately drew criticism on- and o -campus, in part because o the roleits primary sponsor had played in manu acturing uncertainty about climatechange science. Shortly afer the deal was signed, ExxonMobil ran advertise-ments on the Op-Ed page o Te New York imestouting its collaboration withthe best minds at Stan ord, including one ad carrying the o cial seal o Stan-

ord University that suggested there is a lively debate about climate change.44

It certainly appears that Exxon is using it as a g lea or what its doing, and itdoes play into the hands o the Bush administrations view that i we just leaveit up to industry and the private sector, everything will be ne, said DavidRitson, emeritus pro essor o physics at Stan ord.45 Its basically part o theiradvertising budget. I dont think its serious, added Martin Ho ert, a pro es-sor at New York University and a prominent climate researcher who began hiscareer as an Exxon- unded scientist.46

Indeed, ExxonMobil has continued to tout the partnership in recent ad campaigns. ExxonMobil has teamed up with Stan ord University to nd break-through technologies that deliver more energy while reducing greenhouse gasemissions, the oil giant gushes in a Spring 2007 television commercial. An adin the New York imesread, oday, an energy company and a leading univer-sity share a common goal. Te common good.

Te ad campaign has brought more attention to the program, and not all o that attention has been positive. Afer seeing the ads, movie producer SteveBing who has donated $22.5 million to Stan ord decided to rescind a promised $2.5 million donation to the school. Bing is also asking other donorsto ollow his lead and reconsider their donations as well, but so ar no one elsehas done so.47


18/33

0Big Oil U.

Perhaps in recognition o the political sensitivity o having ExxonMobil as

chie sponsor, Stan ord made its contract with the projects sponsors publiclavailable and set up procedures that it claims ensures GCEP researchers willhave su cient independence rom the programs sponsors. GCEP director Onoted that both the projects sponsors and the university recognized the valueo maintaining the independence o GCEP researchers. Tey have the intelltual reedom and the academic reedom to publish whatever they want, he

Indeed, despite concerns that having ExxonMobil as a chie sponsor wouldcause the program to ocus too heavily on ossil uels, GCEP has poured scant resources into renewable energy, particularly solar. A large portion o th

$72.1 million awarded by GCEP through November 2007 went or projectsnot associated with carbon-based uels.48 Nearly one-quarter o those projects went to solar energy research alone.49 Tis unding comes despite top Exxon-Mobil o cials having stated that renewable energy sources wind, solar andhydrogen will never be economical or reliable enough to replace ossil u50

Yet, a closer look at GCEP reveals that Stan ord missed several opportunitieinsulate its researchers rom its sponsors:

l Te sponsors provide technical evaluations o the proposals be ore GCEPo cials decide which projects should receive unding.

l Afer GCEP's sta has recommended projects or unding, the sponsorshave the nal say on research topics and budgets each year.

l Te sponsors have exclusive rights to commercialize any inventions thatresult rom GCEP research, without paying a dime to Stan ord, or the

ve years afer patents are issued. GCEP has led at least ve patent applications in the elds o biohydrogen, nanoprobes, carbon nanotubes anbioelectricity.

l Individual sponsors can unilaterally terminate a project by giving the university 90 days written notice. Individual sponsors can withdraw rom th project by giving two years notice.

l Research can be withheld rom the public or 60 days, and possibly longto allow or patent applications.

l Te management committee, which consists o one university representa-tive and one representative o each o the our sponsors, must approve preleases and statements be ore they can be publicly released.


19/33

Big Oil U.

Faculty input has been limited rom GCEP's inception. Given the high-pro le

o ExxonMobil and its long-established ties to some o the most prominentskeptics o global warming, one might have expected such an arrangement would have prompted a orce ul examination by the university. Instead, thenegotiations were carried out at the deans o ces, with minimal input rom

aculty and no student involvement. Te aculty senate, which in the past hadbeen in ormed o similar large projects, was not even told o the project until it was announced to the Stan ord community in November 2002.51 Te deal also was not subject to any sort o independent review at the university level, sinceStan ord, unlike many other major universities, does not have an independentresearch board charged with reviewing such partnerships with industry.

Stan ords generous terms or ExxonMobils contribution to GCEP set the pat-tern or subsequent corporate investments in university-based energy research.BP received equally generous terms in February 2007 when it vowed to invest$500 million over 10 years in the Energy Biosciences Institute at the Univer-sity o Cali ornia at Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (which theUniversity o Cali ornia runs or the Department o Energy) and Universityo Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. According to Beth Burnside, Berkeleys vicechancellor or research, up to 30 percent o the unding could go to proprietary work per ormed by BP scientists, 20 percent will go to the University o Il-

linois, and the rest will be split between UCBerkeley and the Lawrence lab.52

Although BPs nancial commitment dwar s any similar program that camebe ore it, Burnside noted that even with BPs unding, the amount Berkeley re-ceives rom industry overall is small. Burnside said Berkeley received $550 mil-lion in external unding in 2006; o which, $16 million was rom industry. So,even with an additional $25 million a year rom BP, Berkeley would still receive just 5 percent o its unding rom corporate sponsors less than the nationalaverage o 7 percent.53 Burnside also noted that not allowing researchers totake money rom BP would impinge upon their academic reedom. I aculty

wants to apply to industry or unding, I think thats appropriate. Its part o theacademic reedom o this institution.54

Te deal immediately prompted skepticism on campus, particularly among aculty members who had been active in resisting the Berkeley-Novartis deal.

Tey ear the BP deal is headed down the same path. Now, 10 years later I seeexactly the same thing happening. . . . Sadly, they seemed to have learned noth-ing, said Ignacio Chapela, now an assistant pro essor in Berkeleys Department


20/33

Big Oil U.

o Environmental Science, Policy and Management.55

At a aculty orum on the Energy Biosciences Institute, Chapela publicly attacked the deal, likened it to prostitution and warned that signing the contract with BP could lead to doubts about the universitys objectivity and advice in

uture. Signing the contract with British Petroleum would yoke the universito a awed and potentially very dangerous route, at least or the next decadeBecause o investments and commitments made, and the roads not taken, m probably much longer, Chapela said, noting that the deal would make it di

cult or researchers to illuminate problems with the BP strategy.56

Tere are also concerns about Berkeleys relationship with the projects spon-sor. When the nal details o the pact were announced in November 2007, itbecame clear that BP will have a very prominent role in the institute. Berkele

nal contract with BP provides that:

l Te governing board will include our BP representatives and our univerty representatives, and the board would have nal say over budget allocatand oversight.

l Te company was given two o eight slots on the executive committee thareviews project proposals.

l BP researchers will rent space on Berkeley's campus where they can cond proprietary research, reely interact with academic researchers, and attenall on-campus activities; however, aculty using the on-campus corporate

acilities must sign con dentiality agreements, and the premises are closto graduate students because they are not allowed to engage in proprietarresearch.

l Publication o research results may be delayed to give BP time to reviewto remove proprietary in ormation and consider its patent possibilities.

l For projects ully unded by BP that lead to patents, the company canchoose either a nonexclusive, royalty- ree license or get an exclusive lice where annual royalties cannot exceed $100,000 a year.

All o these terms have sparked concerns on campus about what the BerkeleBP deal portends or the uture o academic research. Charles Schwartz, a

essor emeritus o physics at Berkeley and a long-time critic o industry, nothat the sheer size o the agreement necessitates strict measures to ensure the protection o academic reedom. "I think the Academic Senate should appo


21/33

Big Oil U.

a special committee to exercise real, ongoing oversight o this project," Schwartz

said.57

Chapela noted that in the past the government and corporations have re-lied on imperatives such as the Cold War to embark on major new enterprises,including the national laboratories, that at the time were perceived as potentialthreats to academic reedom. Global warming is now an imperative as power-

ul as Nazi Germany taking over the world, Chapela said. It really behoovesthe representatives o society to ask the question, Are we losing our academic

reedom or this?

University o cials say no. All o those are standard provisions in industry-university contracts, said Beth Burnside, vice chancellor or research at Berkeley.

Te right to publish is guaranteed. Tat they can delay publication is in theinterest o both parties to make sure we dont publish proprietary in ormationand to see i there is something worth patenting.

But exclusive patent licenses may limit the universities ability to manage those patents in the public interest. In recent years, some critics have raised questionsabout the potential negative consequences o early-stage patenting o scienti cinsights, especially in biomedicine. It has the potential to cut o independentacademic investigators rom promising lines o inquiry that require easy, a -

ordable access to patented concepts or research tools. Tere is a movement

to establish patent pools to orestall the possibility that too much early-stage patenting will ence o the intellectual commons.58

Its too early to tell i similar problems will plague the alternative energy eld,but the seeds o that possibility are being sown in the generous rst rights andlicensing terms that universities are o ering to their energy industry corporatebene actors. Most o the universities that have signed agreements have ollowedthe Stan ords lead in granting exclusive rights to project sponsors. For example,the Cali ornia Institute o echnology has given BP rst rights to any intel-lectual property developed as a result o the solar research it is unding, and

Caltech allows BP to review and delay research to protect patents.59

Rice University is one o the ew universities that signed agreements with anoil rm that didnt o er exclusive rights to intellectual property derived romgrants. But its Shell Center or Sustainability, which received $3.5 million romShell Oil in 2002, has two Shell representatives on the seven-person committeethat makes decisions about which projects receive unding. Teyre there tomake sure the research money is spent wisely or the purposes or which theydonated the money, said Peter Hartley, who heads up the center.60

Most o the univer-sities have signed

agreements grant-ing exclusive rightsto project sponsors.


22/33

Big Oil U.

Chevron has been especially aggressive in directing how its grant money get

spent and in laying claims to intellectual property that might result. It undedtwo alternative uel projects in 2006: one at the Georgia Institute o echnoogy that will provide $12 million over ve years, and another ocused specically on bio uels at the University o Cali ornia at Davis that will provide $million over ve years. Under the agreement establishing the partnership atUCDavis, the university retains the intellectual property rights to inventionsdeveloped solely by UCDavis scientists, but Chevron has the rst option to purchase an exclusive license.61

According to Lynne Chronister, UCDavis associate vice chancellor or

research, a joint management committee comprised o university and Chevro cials will set guidelines governing the direction o the research. Research proposals will be vetted by the university and then orwarded to the oil comny. Chevron also has the right to review research be ore it is published to enthat con dential company in ormation is not included in the report, and it cadelay research to le patents. Chevrons research goals t UC-Daviss goals nding clean, sustainable, a ordable alternative sources o energy, Chronsaid.62

UCDavis has a long history o collaboration with Chevron, which is head-

quartered in nearby San Ramon, Cali . Te company has given the universitymore than $5.6 million since 1961 and a number o Chevron executives haveserved on UC-Davis advisory committees and boards. Don Paul, Chevrons vice president and chie technology o cer, sits on the schools 33-memberExternal Research Advisory Board and Rick Zalesky, vice president o bioand hydrogen or Chevron echnology Ventures, is on the Board o Advisoand the Hydrogen Pathways Program Advisory Committee o the Institute oransportation Studies.63


23/33

Big Oil U.

RECOMMENDATIONSAs the planet heats up, the nation, indeed, the world, will need the intellectualresources o Americas leading universities to conquer this global challenge. Itscrucial that researchers pursue the goals o discovering cleaner energy sourcesand reducing greenhouse emissions. But to do that e ciently and e ectively,they must be ree to pursue their research wherever it leads them, even i it isnot an economically or politically popular direction.

oward that end, universities taking money rom industries as they pursue this worthy line o research should adopt policies that protect their autonomy and preserve the reedom o their researchers.

Such policies include:

l Prohibiting representatives o corporate donors rom sitting on research programs governing boards;

l Prohibiting industry donors rom controlling the content and direction o research programs;

l Eliminating rst rights intellectual property clauses rom donor agree-ments;

l Barring industry scientists rom utilizing campus resources like physicalspace or corporate research projects; and

l Ensuring that company representatives cannot suppress research or delay its publication.

Adopting such measures would allow universities to ree themselves romthe market-driven concerns o major energy corporations. Basic and appliedscienti c research at the nations universities has been key to many o society'sgreatest technological discoveries. Tis will undoubtedly be true as the UnitedStates and the rest o the world struggle to create and adopt an energy systemthat preserves the global environment. It is crucial that universities maintaintheir independence rom the commercial pressures o the ossil uel and othercarbon-emitting industries so their researchers can explore ideas and solutions with no obvious commercial bene t. o do so, universities must return theirtraditional ideals o academic independence and reedom.

Universities mustbe ree to pursue

their research wher-ever it leads them,even i it is not aneconomically orpolitically populardirection.


24/33

Big Oil U.

Admittedly, this is no easy task in today's society, particularly as governmen

support or higher education has waned. But universities have little choice ithey wish to serve societys long-term interests in reducing carbon emissionsand slowing the pace o global warming.


25/33

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS DONTMAKE UP FOR THE SHORTFALLHave you seen those ubiquitous advertisements touting the clean energy proj-ects o big oil rms and electric utilities? Te hype goes way beyond the reality.Te university research programs recently launched by big oil rms do not evenbegin to make up or these rms piti ully small investments in a cleaner uture.

For decades, energy rms ranging rom the large oil conglomerates to thecoal industry to the electric utilities have been slashing their research anddevelopment budgets, including or alternative energy. When coupled with

government energy R&D budgets, which have remained stagnant, the nationsinvestment in a clean energy uture has dropped by 40 percent since 1985 (see

gure 1).

Compared to the drug industry, in ormationtechnology, or biotechnology, its strikingly di -

erent, said Gregory F. Nemet, a University o Wisconsin energy policy analyst. It raises thequestion o where the energy technologies aregoing to come rom i were ever going to move

away rom ossil uels.

Te high prices that consumers have been paying or oil have not resulted in higher research bud-

gets, according to Nemets recently publishedstudy.64 otal energy industry investment inR&D, measured in in ation-adjusted dollars, ellsharply between 1985 and 2003 rom $4.0 billion to $1.1 billion. Over thosenearly two decades, the energy industry invested less than one-quarter o 1 per-cent o its vast revenues in research, down rom over 1 percent between 1975

and 1987 when the nation was perceived to be in an energy crisis. Industryscontribution to the nations total investment in energy R&D ell rom abouthal o $7.5 billion in 1991 to just 24 percent o $4.5 billion in 2003. Govern-ment spending over this period ailed to pick up the slack, alling to $3.4 billionin 2003 rom $4.0 billion in 1985 (see gure 1).

Venture capital- unded research into clean technologies hasnt picked up theslack either. Venture capital rms invested $2.9 billion in the green tech sector

Eroding Energy R & D

01,000

2,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

1 9 8 5

1 9 8 7

1 9 8 9

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 3

Year

M

i l l i o n s o

f $ ( 2 0 0 2 )

TotalGovernmentIndustry

Figure 1

Source: Gregory F. Nemet, Daniel M. Kammen, U.S. Energy Researchand Development: Declining Investement, Increasing Need, and theFeasibility of Expansion, Energy Policy 35 (2007), pp. 746-55.

SIDEBAR Big Oil U.


26/33

Big Oil U.

in 2006, a 142 percent increase over the $1.2 billion invested in 2004.65 But

even adding that to the total R&D budget (and some portion o that moneygoes or administration, sales, and manu acturing) leaves total spending mothan $1 billion below spending o the mid-1980s in in ation-adjusted terms,and about hal o what was spent on energy R&D in the late 1970s.

Compared to other sectors, especially health care, researching energy conser vation, alternatives energy sources and better use o ossil uels are barely the map as a national priority. In the early 1980s, U.S. companies involved in producing energy were investing more in R&D than the drug industry andthe in ant biotechnology industry combined. Spurred on by the two oil price

spikes o the 1970s, research into energy e ciency and oil alternatives roseto an impressive 10 percent o all research or all purposes, whether public private. Te investment binge included huge government programs to developclean energy alternatives like solar, geothermal, and bio uels, as well as eneboondoggles like the ailed synthetic uels program.

But the steady erosion (until recently) in oil prices, a sharp rightward turn innational politics, and the heavy in uence o carbon uel-based industries on public policy put an end to that early dabbling with a clean energy uture. Othe last three decades, the combined public and private budgets or medical

research more than quadrupled in in ation-adjusted dollars while energy rmcut their spending by more than hal . oday, energy accounts or just 2 perco the nations overall research e ort. otal private sector energy R&D is lethan the R&D budgets o individual biotech companies such as Amgen andGenentech, Nemet said.66

Economists ocus on industry and government research patterns because theare an important indicator o where an economy is headed. R&D leads tothe development o new products and processes. An expanding R&D budgecreates jobs or knowledge workers with advanced degrees and encourages

graduate students to gravitate to elds with rising budgets and surrounded byan aura o intellectual excitement. Moreover, companies that invest heavily iR&D ensure their utures, since they are better positioned to take advantage sudden changes in the market like an oil price spike or growing public conceabout what economists call externalities like climate change.

But the trajectories o public and private energy R&D budgets reveal that thnation is doing next to nothing to cope with rising energy prices or to head oglobal warming. Te United States today relies on oil, coal, and natural gas o

Researching en-ergy conservation,

alternative energysources and betteruse o ossil uelsare barely on themap as a nationalpriority.


27/33

Big Oil U.

over three-quarters o its energy supplies. Based on current R&D priorities and

the inertia o the existing in rastructure, that wont change much over the next10 or 20 years. Teyre not investing in new technology to replace what theydo, said Scott Sklar, a green energy consultant who used to run the solar cellmanu acturers trade association.67

Te government, o course, could make up or this massive ailure by the privatesector to provide or a clean energy uture. But the Department o Energysresearch budget has stayed relatively at or 20 years afer a sharp allo in theearly 1980s. In 1979, government spending on energy R&D peaked at $8.0billion in in ation-adjusted

dollars double what it spentin recent years (see gure 2).

Renewable sources like solarenergy have taken the biggest whacks. Te U.S. governmentinvested over $550 millionin in ation-adjusted dollars(2004) in solar research in1981. But by 2004, that was

down to $83 million and hasonly rebounded slightly toan estimated $159 millionin 2007. Meanwhile, govern-ment support or ossil uel research, including clean coal technologies, alsodeclined, but took a proportionally much smaller hit, alling rom $994 millionto $562 million in the same period, according to an analysis prepared by KellyGallagher and colleagues at Harvards John F. Kennedy School o Govern-ment.68

Some analysts interested in reducing U.S. dependence on ossil uels dismissconcerns about alling energy R&D budgets. R&D is nice, but it isnt going tosolve the problem, said Anne Korin o the Institute or the Analysis o GlobalSecurity, which promotes energy independence on national security grounds.Te technology is out there. Plug-in hybrids are ready to be deployed. Its notthe job o the oil companies. Tat job belongs to the car companies and thegovernment.69

But rather than stepping in to either mandate or provide incentives or such

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Year

RenewablesEfficiencyFossil FuelsNuclear

Government Energy Spending 1978-2008Figure 2

Source: Gallagher, K.S., Sagar, A, Segal, D, de Sa, P, and John P. Holdren, "DOE Budget Authority for Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Database," Energy Technology Innovation Project, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 2007.


28/33

0Big Oil U.

changes, the government under our straight presidents has allowed alternati

energy technologies to remain the un ertilized plant in the national energy gden. Te United States government will spend just $1.25 billion on renewabllike solar and wind and e ciency this year, Sklar said. It needs to be ten timlarger or an economy the size o the U.S.

Such a dramatic increase would not be unprecedented. Nemets study compaa projected large increase in the governments clean energy research and depment budget to previous high-tech buildups, including the Manhattan Projectthe Apollo space program, the Reagan de ense build-up, the National Instituo Healths doubling o the late 1990s, and the War on error. A ve to ten

increase in spending rom current levels is not a pie in the sky proposal, hconcluded. In act, it is consistent with the growth seen in several previousederal programs, each o which took place in response to clearly articulate

national needs.


29/33

Big Oil U.

APPENDIX A THE PROGRAMS

Institution(s) Sponsor(s) Program Focus Funding Cali ornia Institute o

echnology BP Solar Energy unknown

Carnegie Mellon

Multiple sponsors including NationalScience Foundation, American PetroleumInstitute, ExxonMobil Education Founda-

tion, Electric Power Research Institute

Climate Science and PolicyAnalysis

$20 millionrom 1991-2004

Georgia Institute o echnology Chevron Corp. Alternative Fuels

$12 millionover 5 years

MassachusettsInstitute o echnology

Multiple sponsors including 5 govern-

ment agencies, American electric Power,Chevron Corp., DaimlerChrysler AG,Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Ford Motor

co., General Motors Corp., Schlumberger,and Shell Petroleum

Climate Science and PolicyAnalysis

$6 millionannually

Princeton University BP and Ford Motor Co. CO2 Capture and Storage$20 millionover 10 years

Rice University Shell Oil Co.

Methane Hydrates, CarbonManagement, Nanotechnol-ogy, Energy and Sustainable

Development

$3.5 million

Stan ord University ExxonMobil, General Electric, Schlum-berger, and oyota

Solar, Biomass, Hydrogen,

Advanced Combustion, CO2Capture & Separation, andCO2 Storage


University o Cali or-nia at Berkeley,

Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory,University o Illinois

BP Bio uels $500 millionover 10 years

University o Cali ornia at Davis Chevron Corp. Bio uels



30/33


31/33

Big Oil U.

NOTES1 Jenni er Washburn, University Inc.: Te Corporate Corruption o Higher Educa-

tion, Basic Books, 2005. See, or instance, the cases o Betty Dong, pgs. 19-21; yroneHayes, pgs. 21-3; Michael Wol e, pg. 112; and Nancy Olivieri, pgs. 123-4.

2 Derek Bok, Universities in the Marketplace, Princeton University Press, 2003, pg.144-5.

3 Interview. March 1, 2007.

4 Faculty orum on the Energy Biosciences Institute, March 8, 2007.

5 See, or instance, the Chevron annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commis-sion. In 2006, the company spent $12.6 billion on exploration and $468 million on

research.6 http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/mithistory/charter.html

7 Jenni er Washburn,University Inc.: Te Corporate Corruption o Higher Education (New York: Basic Books, 2005), p. 57.

8 Ibid., pp. 58-59.

9 Edward E. David Jr., Science Futures: Te Industrial Connection,Science,203(4383), March 2, 1979: 837.


11 Ann Crittenden, Industrys Role in Academia, New York imes, July 22, 1981, p. D1.


13 Ibid., p. 15.

14 http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/07/external_novartis_review. pd

15 For a review o the early debate over global warming, see Eugene Linden,Te Winds o Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction o Civilizations, New York: Simon andSchuster, 2006.

16 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition

17 Chris Mooney, Some Like It Hot, Mother Jones, May/June 2005.

18 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition

19 Pamela Najor, RIP: Global Climate Coalition: Voice or industry opposed globaltreaty, Bureau o National A airs, Jan. 24, 2001.

20 Union o Concerned Scientists,Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big obaccos actics to Manu acture Uncertainty on climate Science, January 2007, pp.9-10.

21 ExxonMobil corporate reports, 2002-2005, and http://www.exxonsecrets.org


32/33

Big Oil U.

22 Jenni er 8. Lee, Exxon Backs Groups Tat Question Global Warming, New Yorkimes,May 28, 2003.

23 Matt Sedensky, Despite Federal Resistance, Cities Begin Embracing Kyoto, Assocated Press, October 22, 2006.

24 http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/person actsheet.php?id=4

25 http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/

26 http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/structure.html# unding

27 http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/history.pd

28 http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/summary.pd

29 Interview, Nov. 14, 2006.30 Email communication, Dec. 18, 2006.

31 Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifs to physicians rom intry, Journal o the American Medical Association. 2003;290:252-255.

32 See Te Future o Coal and Te Future o Nuclear Power, available on the MICenter or Energy and Environmental Policy Research webpage at http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/index.html (accessed Dec. 12, 2007). Te third majorreport was Te Future o Geothermal Energy.

33 http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/news/CMI06Report-web.pd

34 Kristy Allenby, BP, Ford Award Princeton $20 Million or Research,Te Daily Princetonian, October 26, 2000.

35 http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/summary/documents/annreport06.pd

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check,Scientifc American, September 2006, pp. 1-7.

39 Interview, Oct. 31, 2006.

40 Email, Dec. 14, 2006.

41 E-mail communication. Feb. 16, 2007.

42 http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/people/advisorycouncil/advisory1.htm

43 Goldie Blumenstyk, Greening the World or Greenwashing a Reputation?,TeChronicle o Higher Education, Jan. 10, 2003.

44 Jenni er Washburn, Te Best Minds Money Can Buy,Te ulsa World , July 30,2006, p. G3.

45 Interview, Nov. 21, 2006.

46 Interview, March 5, 2007.


33/33

Big Oil U.

47 Julie Sevrens Lyons, Stan ords Big Oil ies Rile Donor,San Jose Mercury News,March 12, 2007.

48 Maxine Lym, written reply to query, Nov. 15, 2007. See also Stan ord University press release: (http://gcep.stan ord.edu/news/press_3_23_07.html, accessed Oct. 10,2007).

49 Maxine Lym, written reply to interview questions, December 5, 2006.

50 Brad Foss, Energy Cos. Finance Stan ord Project, Associated Press, November 20,2002.

51 David Ritson, Fuel or Tought, Nature, 421. February 6, 2003: 575-576.


53 Faculty orum on the Energy Biosciences Institute, March 8, 2007.54 Ibid.

55 Interview. Feb. 7, 2007.

56 Faculty orum, March 8, 2007.


58 Merrill Goozner, Innovation in Biomedicine : Can Stem Cell Research Lead the Wayto A ordability? PLoS Medicine, May 2006, Vol. 3, Issue 5, p. 611-4.

59 Interview, Cal ech spokesman Dick Seligman, March 1, 2007.

60 Interview, Feb. 27, 2007.

61 Private Sector Partnership Propels UC Davis,Cali ornia Aggie, Sept. 28, 2006.

62 Email, March 6, 2007.

63 http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7873

64 Nemet GF, Kammen, DM, U.S. energy research and development: Declining invest-ment, increasing need, and the easibility o expansion, Energy Policy 35 (2007)746-755.

65 echNet Green echnologies ask Force, Green echnologies: An InnovationAgenda or America, 2006, pg. 8. (available at http://www.technet.org/resources/Green echReport.pd , accessed Nov. 21, 2007)



68 Gallagher, K.S., Sagar, A, Segal, D, de Sa, P, and John P. Holdren, DOE BudgetAuthority or Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Database, Energy

echnology Innovation Project, John F. Kennedy School o Government, HarvardU i it 2004

Big Oil Threatens University Freedoms

Documents

Transcript of Big Oil Threatens University Freedoms