How Environmental “Merchants of Doubt” Use Peer-Reviewed Publication as a Means to Commandeer Scientific Debate: A Case Study of a Publishing Problem.

Abstract:

This year, the USEPA reported no systemic problem with respect to pollution of potable waters by solutes or natural gas resulting from unconventional drilling for oil and gas, despite attempts by anti-fracking opponents to frighten the public about water pollution from rare circumstances (much as those who have cherry- picked climate data to suggest burning fossil fuels does not affect climate). Scientific “merchants of doubt” have figured out how to use peer-reviewed papers to advocate their bias, regardless of the side for which they advocate.

I present a personal example. Prior to the EPA report, authors of a highly-cited peer-reviewed paper argued that more dissolved methane than usual should be expected in ground water located close to unconventional gas wells. This paper figured prominently in the New York State’s recent ban on fracking. To test the reproducibility of this conclusion, colleagues and I redid the study but by sampling ~13,000 NE Pennsylvania domestic wells, densely arrayed near ~800 gas wells. Not surprising, we found no systemic relationship between methane in drinking water and proximity to gas wells; failed gas wells actually are rare.

The peer reviewed system of publication has been broken for years, because of continual pressure to publish more to achieve academic success coupled to a flood of international submissions. Editors routinely have a difficult time finding senior scientists to agree to review papers, and so they wind up relying more on reviewers suggested by authors, who can and have gamed the peer review system through it. To resolve this problem, I suggest that journal editors be more far more draconian before releasing papers for review and that they enforce clear rubrics to insure that reviewers address reviews properly. Finally, conflict of interest disclosure needs to be clearer, since common assumption that bias inherently evolves from funded research outside of Federal and non-profit organizations, appears to be, at least to me, fundamentally flawed.