Fracking and Public Health, Part 2

The Coverage

Please read part 1 about the Rabinowitz survey of fracking and health.

With the exception of USA Today, the response of the corporate media to the Rabinowitz study has been a collective yawn.

Since Washington County is part of the area served by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, one might expect the survey to be front-page news. On the contrary, the study was buried in a short article on page 4 of the local section, with what seems like a deliberately uninformative headline, “Study looks at gas wells, health.” Three of its nine paragraphs were devoted to rebuttal from Travis Windle, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group.

© All rights reserved by jeffs4653

In an unusually harsh attack on the integrity of the researchers, Mr. Windle stated, "This study, done in partnership with a local activist group, was designed to put selective and unproven data behind a predetermined and biased narrative." The activist group is presumably the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project, which is opposed to fracking. They are credited with assistance with the survey; specifically: "The survey was pre-tested with focus groups in the study area in collaboration with a community-based group and revised to ensure comprehensibility of questions." If this is all they did, they played only a limited role in the study.

Pittsburgh's avowedly right wing newspaper, the Tribune-Review, offered an unusual take on the Rabinowitz study. First of all, they claim that this study is balanced by a “confllicting” 2014 study by Penn State geologist Terry Engelder and colleagues. This study found no evidence that fracking fluids, injected deep underground into the Marcellus shale, were migrating toward the surface and contaminating the ground water. Rather than conflicting, the two studies are actually irrelevant. Rabinowitz attributed the symptoms he discovered to air pollution, pollution of ground water from fluids leaking from around the drilling site, and stress. Migration of deep underground fluids, if it occurs, is presumably a problem for future generations to deal with, long after the drilling companies have taken their money and run.

The Tribune-Review also suggested that both studies are biased due to their source of funding. The Engelder study was supported by the Marcellus Shale Coalition and included an employee of Shell International as one of its co-authors. The primary supporter of the Rabinowitz study was the non-profit Heinz Foundation. The Heinz Foundation underwent a turnover of its executive staff beginning in August 2013, which is widely interpreted as a shift toward opposition to fracking. Previously, Heinz had been a member of the Center for Sustainable Shale Development, a coalition of environmental and industry groups that was supposed to establish voluntary safety rules for drilling. However, the Rabinowitz study was completed in 2012, while Heinz was still friendly with the drilling industry.

It's clear that we need an improved vocabulary for talking about real or imagined conflicts of interest in research, one which, at a minimum, distinguishes between financial and ideological conflicts of interest. If your research is supported by a for-profit corporation and its results are contrary to corporate interests, two consequences are likely. First, the research results will never be made public, and second, you will never again receive financial support from that corporation. Those outcomes are unlikely when your research is supported by a non-profit foundation.

The Tribune-Review seeks to expand the category of conflicts of interest to include those cases when the researchers or their sponsors have an opinion about the research topic. But this is unrealistic, since investigators almost always have opinions about their research, opinions which often explain why they were interested in the topic in the first place. Even when the research topic is completely non-political, scientists are often professionally committed to their research hypotheses. Good research design ensures that the researchers' expectations, and those of their financial supporters, do not influence the results.

I can't comment on the design of the Engelder study because I lack expertise in geoscience. I described the Rabinowitz study in some detail because it seems to me that the authors have done a good job, under the circumstances, of minimizing researcher bias and evaluating alternative explanations. Right now, the best advice to people on both sides of the issue is replicate, replicate, replicate. For example, studies of fracking and health are in progress at the Geisinger Health Center in central Pennsylvania. Ultimately, whether researchers have successfully eliminated bias is an empirical question. If studies are replicated often enough, it should be possible to determine through systematic reviews whether researchers with different sources of funding have obtained inconsistent results.

You may also be interested in reading:

Fracking and Public Health, Part 1

Fracking Up Baby

Motivated Reasoning