University of Cincinnati Has An Anti-Fracking Bias Problem

by Sean Hackbarth, Contributing Author: Something fishy is going on at the University of Cincinnati.

Energy In Depth reports that a 2015 study published in the scientific journal, Environmental Science & Technology, showing that hydraulic fracturing exposed people to unhealthy levels of air pollution in Ohio, has been retracted because of an “honest spreadsheet error.”

The math correction “changes air concentrations significantly relative to those reported in the published article. This correction also changes some of the conclusions reported in the original article,” the researchers wrote.

The original version of the paper found Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) “from fracking operations may pose an under-recognized health hazard to people living near them.” The corrected version of the paper, to be published soon in the same journal, now finds that PAH levels are actually “below the U.S. EPA’s acceptable risk level.”

EID’s Seth Whitehead points out that the study was flawed from the start:Not only were the study participants recruited by an anti-fracking activist group, the researchers did not use random testing, did not account for sources of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) other than oil and gas activity, and assumed worst case scenarios in their cancer hazard assessments. A Carroll County landowner also informed EID that some of the highest PAH levels detected by the researchers were collected on his property, which is more than 10 miles from the nearest shale gas well. This completely refuted the researchers’ summation that high PAH levels correlated directly to close proximity to shale gas wells.An odd thing about this study is how the University of Cincinnati promoted it. As Whitehead notes, the air pollution study was published “just three months after it was completed.”

Contrast that paper to the fiasco surrounding the UC geology department earlier this year when scientists released findings that showed there was “no evidence” of fracking contaminating Ohio local water supplies.

Like the air pollution study, the results were first presented to a local Ohio anti-fracking advocacy group. It was at that event where Professor Amy Townsend-Small, head of the groundwater research team, acknowledged that anti-fracking funders of the study stopped supporting the research after seeing its results.

Also, unlike the air pollution study, no press release was sent to publicize the water pollution study.

In fact, the water pollution findings remained a local Ohio story until Energy In Depth, Above the Fold, and state officials demanded that the public have access to it. The university conceded by releasing the research in the form of a master’s thesis and stated that it would be submitted to a scientific journal.

It’s been three months since the thesis was released to the public and nearly a year since the thesis was completed and yet the university hasn’t said if or when the findings will be published in a scientific journal.

Why such a rush to publish a study showing fracking is bad but dawdling to publish another study showing that fracking isn’t harmful?

The answer is likely confirmation bias against fracking. People often see what they want to see. If you think fracking is dangerous, you’re inclined to notice evidence of its harm and are less likely to be skeptical of it. And if you come upon evidence that runs counter to your preconceptions, you’re less likely to give it the same weight as it otherwise should.

We see how this played out at the University of Cincinnati. When scientists got results “proving” fracking produced harmful levels of air pollution, it was quickly publicized. EID points out that one of the co-lead authors of the retracted study, Dr. Erin Hayes, took part in an anti-fracking event.

But when another team of scientists undercut the anti-fracking narrative by finding that it wasn’t polluting water, there was little in the way of publicity and research funders walked away from supporting it.

Critical thought is needed to break through confirmation bias—especially at a university or at a peer reviewed journal like Environmental Science & Technology. Scientists have to be careful their judgements aren’t clouded so they miss things like math errors.

Fracking is a valuable technology that has transformed the energy landscape. Scientists at universities and government agencies have found again and again that it safely produces abundant energy.

In policy debates it’s critical that we have good facts for making decisions. Instead of jumping to conclusions, researchers need to make sure the science is done right and that they don’t let their biases get in the way.
---------------
Sean Hackbarth is a policy advocate and Senior Editor, Digital Content, at U.S Chamber of Commerce. He twitters at @seanhackbarth and is a contributing author at the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Sean Hackbarth, Chamber of Commerce, University of Cincinnati, anti-fracking, bias  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!