The Reality of Climate Change Requires So Much More Research… Not!

Just as Big Tobacco spent decades funding “research” into the toxicity of cigarettes, questioning allegations of carcinogenic killer proclivities and “proving” that health concerns were overblown, fossil fuel producers/users have held themselves out as champions of “alternative energy” and funders of university and institutional research to rein in global warming. Their ubiquitous ads scream responsibility, accountability and compassion. But their lobbying at every level, their use of “research funds” to pressure their critics to moderation and delay of environmental/ pollution controls and implementation of alternative energy, even lobbying to kill off incentives to transition away from fossil fuel, say otherwise. Today’s blog focuses that fossil fuel pressure exerted against medical researchers who know better but need that research funding.

It's pretty standard operating procedure for pharmaceutical companies to seduce doctors (now more under control) or at least get their patients to lobby them for a product they saw advertised online or on TV. Not to mention those free samples dropped off to doctors’ offices. Given that the only stakeholders in a US corporation are shareholders – any other willingness to provide benefits either has a hidden value or is mandated by statute or regulation – maximizing shareholder values is the only legitimate pursuit for officers and directors. Even corporate “charity” is all about creating an image that makes the company more attractive to customers and clients.

Writing for the November 7th Associated Press, doctors and professors Alexander Rabin (University of Michigan) and Caren Solomon (Harvard Medical School) explore this nefarious practice: “When Sultan Al Jaber, the president-designate of COP28, unveiled plans for a first-ever Day of Health at the upcoming United Nations-sponsored climate summit, he noted his ‘resolute’ determination to ‘address the challenges posed to health by climate change.’ The announcement was welcome given the climate-fueled health crises that now regularly strike our patients, including heat stroke, insect-borne diseases like Lyme and childhood asthma arising from wildfire smoke exposure… But it was also ironic: The man promising to ‘shine a light’ on the deadly effects of fossil fuel pollution heads an oil company that’s raking in profits while ramping up emissions.

“Although Al Jaber’s contradictory roles are no secret, his situation points to a broader web of conflicts of interest that endangers climate progress. From official reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where the sway of oil and gas companies has watered down language on fossil fuels, to universities and think tanks, climate research and policymaking is awash in influence-peddling… As medical doctors who treat climate-related diseases and regularly navigate conflicts of interest, we are frustrated, but not surprised, by this lack of transparency. We’ve seen firsthand the pressure that commercial interests have exerted on our field. But basic guardrails in medicine have shown it’s possible to work with industry without compromising ethics. The rules to partition patients from profits should be a guide for climate policy reform.

“Modern medicine has long been in tension with private enterprise. In recent decades, a series of scandals exposed problematic relationships between doctors and industry. In 2000, authors of two separate pharmaceutical-sponsored trials of arthritis medications incompletely reported results, underestimating the risk of Vioxx-related heart attacks and overstating the health benefits of Celebrex. (Vioxx was later withdrawn from the market; Celebrex was slapped with a black box warning.)

“But it’s the opioid epidemic that best exemplifies corporate greed infecting medicine. Purdue Pharma, the maker of Oxycontin, funded research that downplayed the addictive properties of their drugs and paid physicians to juice up opioid prescribing… This kind of behavior understandably erodes trust in medical science. But over time, physicians, hospitals and medical journals have put in place conflict of interest guidelines that, while imperfect, have helped lessen inappropriate influence in medicine. Government intervention has made a difference too.

“The first crucial step is disclosure. Before lecturing in a medical education course or professional meeting, physicians have to complete a form listing all industry associations and attesting that that their lecture will be unbiased and will not promote commercial interests. When presenting, we also display a slide listing companies that have provided financial support…

“Many medical schools require publicly accessible faculty disclosures and have cracked down on industry-sponsored lunches and gifts. And professional organizations like the American Thoracic Society have enacted tobacco-free funding pledges… Climate advocates have petitioned for similar rules on fossil fuel money but so far, the reaction in academia has been muted. At Harvard, activists raised concerns this past year over law professor Jody Freeman — a co-chair of the university’s Presidential Committee on Sustainability and recipient of a grant from the university’s new climate institute — serving on the board of ConocoPhillips, which is behind the Willow oil drilling project. Despite receiving more than $350,000 in yearly compensation from the company, Freeman — who ultimately resigned from its board — did not violate Harvard policies, underscoring the need for stronger regulations in academics.

“Freeman, Al Jaber and others have argued that decarbonization requires collaboration, claiming that industry know-how paired with academic engagement will extract us from the climate quagmire. But the gaping chasm between fossil fuel companies’ rhetoric around clean energy and their actual pursuit of it suggests not. Instead, involvement in academia may provide oil and gas companies a sheen of respectability while potentially influencing those whose research and scholarship drive climate policy.

“At the bare minimum, places where climate research and policy originate — universities, research institutes, conferences and scientific journals — should require mandatory disclosure of fossil fuel funding. Under pressure, COP28 has required oil lobbyists to identify themselves as such. However, in a recent report issued by a Harvard alumni group, a majority of that university’s surveyed departments were still ‘reluctant or unable to publicly disclose’ fossil fuel funding.” Lobbying, fostering research to marginalize known major issues and saying one thing but embracing the opposite… it’s all one form of lying or another. Quite the vogue in the United States today.

I’m Peter Dekom, and lying at all levels is the new “American Way.”