Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon, a researcher at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has long been a vocal critic of the consensus of the scientific community that climate change is largely a manmade phenomenon. It should come as no surprise then that, when news broke late last week that Soon's ties to the fossil fuel industry were stronger than previously known, environmentalists cried foul.
Criticism of Soon is warranted, but it's important to be clear on why. Soon's wrongdoing was not in accepting money from the fossil-fuel industry to conduct research. There is nothing inherently wrong with accepting funding for scientific research from private interests. Society has benefitted greatly from research funded or directly conducted by the private sector. Cars, iPhones, TVs, biomedical devices, prescription drugs – none of these would exist without private sector-funded research.
In fact, at least some of Soon's colleagues—even those who might refute his conclusions—have been careful to defend his right to academic freedom, to ask and seek answers to the questions he chooses. According to The New York Times, Dr. Charles Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center (with which Soon is affiliated), "acknowledged on Friday that Dr. Soon had violated the disclosure standards of some journals," but "said that, aside from the disclosure issue, he thought it was important to protect Dr. Soon’s academic freedom, even if most of his colleagues disagreed with his findings."
But why would Soon's "boss" (if he could be called that) come to his defense, even when the conclusions of his research stand at odds with the majority of those of the scientific community? Christine Pulliam, a spokeswoman for the Center for Astrophysics, explained to the Guardian:
“Academic freedom is critically important. The Smithsonian stands by the process by which the research results of all of its scholars are peer reviewed and vetted by other scientists. This is the way that the scientific process works. The funding entities, regardless of their affiliation, have no influence on the research.”
So it would seem that it is neither the source of Soon's funding nor the conclusions of his research that were cause for concern. And while it's true that who funds research often determines which questions get asked and answered, the scientific method should produce verifiable, repeatable results regardless of the topic of exploration. So in theory, who funds the research shouldn't affect the research's outcome, and the peer-review process should catch any problems with the science before the research goes to press. "What's the big deal, then?" one might ask. "Shouldn't the science speak for itself?" According to The New York Times, Soon put it this way:
“I write proposals; I let them decide whether to fund me or not,” he said at an event in Madison, Wis., in 2013. “If they choose to fund me, I’m happy to receive it.” A moment later, he added, “I would never be motivated by money for anything.”
Soon also told the Boston Globe in 2013:
“No amount of money can influence what I have to say and write, especially on my scientific quest to understand how climate works, all by itself.’’
One may doubt Soon's integrity, but the implication of his statements is clear: the science should speak for itself. And this is the point Alcock and Pulliam made, as cited above. This is also why they were clear to defend his academic freedom: essentially, if there is a problem with the science, criticize the science. (Soon's colleagues in academia, for their part, have roundly criticized his work on its merits.)
So why does it matter that Soon didn't disclose his funding sources?
Soon's misdeed was in failing to disclose his financial ties to the fossil-fuel industry when the journals where he published required it. Academic journals often rely on researchers to self-report funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest. By failing to do so, Soon undermined the credibility of his own findings. But he also violated the trust of the public.
In addition, disclosing research funding helps identify where additional, disinterested, third-party research might be warranted to verify the findings of the original research. For the general public, who are likely unable to test the validity of the findings of scientific research, following the money provides a heuristic for reliability. The findings of research funded by an institution with a potential conflict of interest should be held in lower regard than the results of a similar study conducted by a disinterested third party.
For example, the public should rightly be skeptical of the findings of studies conducted by a private party with a significant financial interest in the results of the research coming out one way as opposed to another. The safety of a product or practice is a great example. Is fracking safe? The best group to ask isn't the American Petroleum Institute. Is a new drug safe? It's probably better to ask someone besides the company developing it.
From the public's perspective, Soon deserves criticism not for accepting money from the fossil-fuel industry nor for coming to conclusions different from his colleagues'; rather, Soon deserves criticism for failing to disclose the extent of his ties to the fossil-fuel industry when there is an obvious conflict of interest between fossil-fuel industry profits and the conclusion of the scientific community—based on an overwhelming preponderance of empirical observation—that the burning of fossil fuels is a significant factor driving climate change.