Credibility of Stanford University ethanol research tainted by ExxonMobil Ties?

A week ago, a Stanford University researcher surprised the academic world by claiming that the use of ethanol increases health risks, compared to gasoline. These findings went against a large body of earlier independent research.

For this reason, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR), a leading non-partisan, non-profit consumer watchdog group, decided to have a look into the matter and found that the research credibility of the scientist is seriously undercut by the school's ties to oil major ExxonMobil Corp.

In his study (earlier post) Mark Z. Jacobson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, found that "a blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater [environmental health] risk than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage." His paper published in the online edition of Environmental Science and Technology said the research, based on computer models, was partly funded by NASA. The model is controversial because it assumes full conversion to ethanol use rather than partial.

ExxonMobil has given US$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. He is featured throughout a brochure about the Global Climate and Energy Program.

"It's difficult to accept a controversial study throwing cold water on the accepted idea that blended ethanol is a good solution to our energy problems when the university well that produced the study has been poisoned by Big Oil's money," said John M. Simpson, an FTCR advocate:
bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: ethanol :: Stanford University :: Big Oil ::

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

ExxonMobil Chairman Rex Tillerson is dismissive of ethanol's prospects, recently telling Fortune Magazine, "I don't have a lot of technology to add to moonshine."

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."

Under the GCEP agreement ExxonMobil could control any patented results of hydrogen research, FTCR noted.

"That's the problem when a university's administration takes Big Oil's cash and becomes part of Big Oil U.," said Simpson. "Even the very best work by its faculty members is greeted with justifiable skepticism from the public. It's in the best interests of faculty and students alike to resist this corporatization of higher education."

The GCEP is managed and controlled by its corporate sponsors, not the university, FTCR noted.

ExxonMobil has given $100 million to the GCEP. Other sponsors are Schlumberger, Toyota and General Electric. ExxonMobil, along with the other partners, receives five-year exclusive rights to any discoveries resulting from the research, meaning they can bury promising discoveries if they wish. The program is overseen by a management committee comprised of the corporate sponsors. The university has no vote on the committee, meaning that the research agenda can be set by the sponsoring firms. The committee can decide what patents will be sought.

BP has proposed a similar $500 million deal with UC Berkeley that would create the Energy Biosciences Institute. That deal would bring 50 BP scientists to campus to do proprietary research and is under fire by many faculty members and students. The Berkeley administration hopes to sign the deal this summer.

At Stanford, ExxonMobil -- known for undermining scientists who linked greenhouse gases to global warming -- is touting its relationship with the university in a major advertising campaign. Objecting to ExxonMobil's greenwashing campaign, movie producer Steve Bing, who attended Stanford and had donated $22.5 million to the school, protested recently by canceling a $2.5 million pledge and any future donations.


The fact that private oil companies are trying to discredit or downplay the role of biofuels in our future energy mix, is not new. Independent analysts estimate that the green fuels can replace between 50 and 100% of all petroleum used, by 2050. So it does not come as a surprise to see oil majors fearing for their future. From the Philippines to Venezuela, from Australia to the Netherlands, everywhere Big Oil is funding marketing and lobbying campaigns against biofuels.

The situation looks very different when state-run oil companies are involved. The best example comes from Brazil, where PetroBras has helped launch a successful biofuels industry that now benefits the company. The same is true in China, where state-run CNOOC is investing heavily in the fuels.

On the other hand, big agribusiness tends to operate the same way as Big Oil: it pushes overly optimistic research on biofuels, creating unrealistic expectations.

Given the enormously hight stakes and the huge flows of money and profit that is involved in this sector, we urge all readers to be sceptical about research that is either too blindly in favor or against biofuels.


The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) is a leading non-profit, non-partisan consumer watchdog group. It also has a dedicated segment focusing on energy issues.