Big oil undermining biofuel research, warns watchdog

Question a Stanford study sounding potential health risks of ethanol, recommends a watchdog group, given the university's substantial funding from ExxonMobil.

It's the most recent example of a university's credibility being undermined by the money it receives from big oil, says the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).

Mark Z. Jacobson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, recently published that "a blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater [environmental health] risk than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage."

His paper, based on computer models, appeared in the online edition of Environmental Science and Technology.

The study suggested a net few hundred more people in America might suffer respiratory illnesses if the nation were to switch all vehicles to 100% ethanol.

It received mainstream media attention this week, given that ethanol proponents have long maintained that the fuel is substantially less polluting, citing volumes of data.

In an interview with the Cleantech Group, the FTCR consumer group highlighted the fact that ExxonMobil has given $100 million to fund Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Program (GCEP).

Though the ethanol study was not funded by that program, Jacobson had a three-year grant from GCEP to study the impact of replacing fossil-fuel motor vehicles and electric power plants with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and power plants, the group said.

Simpson says Stanford's energy research credibility, much like other universities that have recently receive large amounts of funding from leading oil companies, has to be considered carefully. Corporate sponsors have more control over research agendas than most people realized, he told the Cleantech Group.

"At Stanford, the GCEP has a management committee is comprised of the four corporate sponsors, the largest of which is ExxonMobil, and the university doesn't even get a vote on that committee. That committee can decide which inventions they'll seek patents on. The donors have five year royalty-free licenses to commercialize any patented research that comes out of the program," Simpson said.

"I'm not opposed to the notion of oil companies finding that maybe they should be investing in renewable energy. Indeed that should be encouraged. But to do it in a way that subverts and controls a whole university's research program is inappropriate and there needs to be safeguards in place to prevent that."

While the FTCR acknowledges the science behind Jacobson's ethanol study could well be valid, the public should not accept the results at face value when ExxonMobil has funded a major energy research program at the university and the research results are in line with the giant oil firm's corporate goals, it said.

For his part, Stanford scientist Jacobson said his ethanol work was not influenced by the corporate funding to the GCEP. "I completely oppose ExxonMobil and what it stands for," he said. He added that the results for the hydrogen research funded by GCEP, "resulted in me showing how unhealthful gasoline was relative to hydrogen, so it is certainly not a benefit to the oil companies."

ExxonMobil has given $100 million to the GCEP. Other sponsors include Schlumberger, Toyota and General Electric.

ExxonMobil—previously accused of undermining scientists who linked greenhouse gases to global warming—is touting its relationship with Stanford in an advertising campaign.

A company spokesperson suggested FTCR's concerns are unfounded.

"ExxonMobil, as well as the other program sponsors Toyota, Schlumberger and GE, has no control over the research conducted by Stanford and we scrupulously follow our agreement," said spokesperson Dave Gardner to the Cleantech Group.

"I find FTCR's allegations hard to take at face value when the person they claim we have influenced states, 'I completely oppose ExxonMobil and what it stands for.' We are proud of our support for the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford University," said Gardner.

"You give these groundless accusations way too much credibility."

BP has proposed a similar $500 million deal with U.C. Berkeley that would create the Energy Biosciences Institute. That deal would also bring 50 BP scientists to campus to do proprietary research, and is being criticized by some faculty members and students.

"Secret research that no one else would be able to discuss is hardly compatible with the free flow of information traditionally associated with universities," suggested the FTCR's Simpson.

Other oil companies have also put money into universities of late. Last September, Chevron pledged $25m to U.C. Davis over five years. And earlier this month, ConocoPhillips promised $22.5m to Iowa State over eight years (see Late to game, ConocoPhillips funds biofuel research.)

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is a non-profit consumer watchdog group based in Santa Monica, California that describes itself as "fighting corrupt corporations and crooked politicians since 1985."

Cleantech developments making news in the past 24 hours

• SkyFuel sheds light on giant solar collector

View the last week of cleantech developments here | Subscribe to full feed