susan arbetter interviews ub dean bruce pitman

7/31/2019 Susan Arbetter interviews UB Dean Bruce Pitman

1/5

Susan Arbetter. Interview with UB Dean Bruce Pitman. Capitol Pressroom. 7 June2012.http://www.wcny.org/radio/listen-now/capitolpressroom .

Ms. Susan Arbetter.So a few weeks ago, the University at Buffalos new Shale Resources and

Society Institute released its first study, titled Environmental Impacts During Shale Gas

Drilling: Causes, Impacts, and Remedies. ImmediatelyArtvoice

, which is an alternativenewspaper in Buffalo, raised questions about the study: who funded it? What are the authors tiesto industry? Those questions snowballed, and were being asked by larger news organizations like

the Associated Press. Further discrepancies were uncovered between what the lead authorclaimed in a UB press release and what was actually claimed in the study, including one claim

that the report was peer reviewed when it was not. All these criticisms culminated in anunflattering report by the nonprofit Public Accountability Initiative, a report that you can see

online at Littlesis.org. All of this highlights questions about research funding in general,especially in light of the troubled history at the SUNY Research Foundation, and what some

news outlets have called the veil of secrecy over Research Foundation funding.

Today the University at Buffalo responds to these criticisms. My guest is Dr. Bruce Pitman. Heis the Associate Dean for Research and Sponsored programs at UBs College of Arts and

Sciences, as well as a Professor of Mathematics. Dr. Pitman, welcome to the Capitol Pressroom.

Dean Bruce Pitman. Hi Susan, how are you?

Ms. Susan Arbetter. Fine, thank you.

Dean Bruce Pitman. I should correct one thing. For all of about a year now, Ive actually beenthe Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. I was the Associate Dean here for about eight

years, and last June I was appointed Dean of the College itself.

Ms. Susan Arbetter. I apologize for that.

Dean Bruce Pitman. No biggy.

Ms. Susan Arbetter. So I want to ask you a series of questions about the study and the Institute,and then perhaps we can get into a broader conversation about the role of industry and private

funding of academic research, which is sort of a bigger, more important issue. First though, whatis your relationship as dean to the UB Shale Resources and Society Institute?

Dean Bruce Pitman. So let me take a step back. The origin of the Institute. It started with a

series of seminars organized by the Geology Department in spring ofget my years rightof2011. It dealt with Marcellus across the spectrum: the geology of shale rock, property rights,

regulation, drilling, environmental issues, with speakers from a variety of backgrounds. Thatseminar series was very successful. There was interest in following up on this issue. Of course

its a huge issue in upstate New York, this compelling public interest, state interest, in whatsgoing on with Marcellus, what the facts really are. So in consultation with the Geology faculty

and with others at the university, as dean I gave my support to create an Institute as an initiativeof the College of Arts and Sciences. And thats how it started.
http://www.wcny.org/radio/listen-now/capitolpressroomhttp://www.wcny.org/radio/listen-now/capitolpressroomhttp://www.wcny.org/radio/listen-now/capitolpressroomhttp://www.wcny.org/radio/listen-now/capitolpressroom


2/5

2

Ms. Susan Arbetter. All right. So you were the person who . . . basically, the buck stops with

you. You were doing the hiring of the people who run the institute and you oversee it in yourcapacity as dean.

Dean Bruce Pitman. Right. I gave the support to creating the Institute. I appointed the Directorand the Co-Director of the Institute and got it started.

Ms. Susan Arbetter. So those who have criticized the report say the report is sloppy in terms ofthe scholarship and how it was presented to the public, and I have a few examples that I want to

share and have you respond to. For example, the UB press release claimed the study was peerreviewed when it wasntyou dont have to respond to that. I think weve heard what happened

there. There are questions about the validity of the reports conclusions, though. For example, thePublic Accountability Initiative says the authors of the UB report misread their own data in

stating the rate of major accidents had gone down, when it hadnt. And the Executive Summarystates the odds of major violations are being reduced, but the numbers reflect just the opposite. It

seems like the lead author, Thomas [sic; Timothy] Considine has oversold the report publicly,saying, for example, the data states without ambiguity that regulation is helping to mitigate

accidents, but thats not what he says in the report. And theres also a question about thescholarship, that he uses a single measure to come to his conclusion, and that single measure are

the Pennsylvania DEP inspectors Notices of Violation. He didnt consider any other factors.And the trouble with the NOVs is that theyre subject to political interference since March of

2011, when Governor Corbett told that DEP that the top brass has to okay all Marcellusregulatory action. Why dont we start there.

Dean Bruce Pitman. Sure. I guess, first, this is a controversial issue. There is emotion on all

sides. I think we have to respect the people that come into this debate, with different experiences,

different perspectives. Were also trying to make sure that we get some science into this debate.You have to understand, what data do we have? What do you know for sure from the data. Whatmight you be able to infer from the data? And how confident are you in those inferences? You

know, thats an important thing to put out there. As to, you had raised several questions, the peer

review issue, right? The report never says peer review. That was an inarticulate phrase in the

press release, right? The question about all violations and the rates year by year versus majorviolations in part of the A.P.I. [sic; PAI] counterargument, I would say to your listenersread

the report! Read the Shale Institute report. All the data they used is out there. The steps taken intheir analysis, what rates they calculate, the data they use in it, the year by year fluctuations in

those rates, its all out there, and. . . .

Ms. Susan Arbetter.Heres the issue with, when you say read the report, I bet that onepercent of the people who are listeningand these are smart NPR listenersare going to read

the report. Nobody has time. We have to live our own lives and feed our kids breakfast andthings like that. So the whole issue around things like Marcellus Shale hydrofracking is that

everybody is saying Its the science . . . look at the science! The problem is the scientists aresaying two different things or even five different things.


3/5

3

Dean Bruce Pitman. Probably five or six, yes. Its a controversial its a difficult issue. Its avery difficult issue.

Ms. Susan Arbetter. If the science is so important, isnt it the case then that we have to trust

whos paying for the science? You know the old saying, Consider the source.

Dean Bruce Pitman. Youve got a couple of issues at work here. One is the scientists, they . . .what is the standard process when, you know, Professor Pitman writes a paper. I seek funding

from a variety of different sources. What do I do? I disclose on my papers who supported theresearch. And so, again I will reiterate, questions come up very often, the Institute, the Shale

Institute, received no industry funding in putting this report together. And I dont want to beaccused of trying to parse words here. Its not that the report got funded but the Institute didnt or

anything like that. We didnt receive any industry funding for this report, pure and simple.

Ms. Susan Arbetter. Did the Institute get funding from the SUNY Research Foundation.

Dean Bruce Pitman. The funding for the Institute has come from College of Arts and Sciencesresources.

Ms. Susan Arbetter. And that doesnt come from SUNY Research Foundation at all?

Dean Bruce Pitman. The . . . see youve asked a question thats a complicated sort of sort of

issue. Theres the SUNY Research Foundation, right? The Research Foundation of the StateUniversity of New York. Thats a 501(c)3 organization that administers grants to everyone at all

sixty-four campuses. You are suggesting something else the UB Foundation, which is a separate,which is a separate 501(c)3, and that supports the activities, the programs of UB in terms of

managing philanthropic gifts, and grants, and financial services, things like that.

Ms. Susan Arbetter.The reason why Im bringing it up is because the first time I got into thisissue, the person said this was funded by the Institute. The Institute funding if it comes from the

Research Foundation or any of the SUNY entities that arent actually state agencies, theyre notFOILable, so down the line, somewhere, do you know if there was any industry funding, or you

know for sure that theres not, all the way down the line?

Dean Bruce Pitman. So, I think theres three or four points here Susan. The funding for theInstitute. I directed the funding of the Institute from Arts and Sciences resources. Those come

you know, the UB Foundation helps administer a part of those funds for us. Theyre essentiallymy discretionary funds. They help administer some of that. You should under. . . and so there

was no industry support right that went to that was directed towards the Institute or this report oranything like that. You should know you should know that UBF is not a foundation like the Ford

Foundation or the Sloan Foundation or something like that. Its a. . . . It manages gifts orphilanthropy for the university. So it isnt in the business of making grant awards. So its

different from that perspective.

Ms. Susan Arbetter.I understand that its very complicated, but I think what people who arelistening probably want to know is that . . . because we have to depend on science that frankly we


4/5

4

dont understand, we have to depend on universities to issue studies that are unbiased, even thathave the appearance of not being biased.

Dean Bruce Pitman. True.

Ms. Susan Arbetter. Do you think this study has the appearance of not being biased?

Dean Bruce Pitman. I think that. . . . Youve brought out important issues, Susan, and to your

credit for articulating it. Lets be honest here. The noisiest response to the Shale Institute reporthas nothing to do with shale, Its all got to do with UBF and FOIL and everything else. The

Shale Institute Study is a particular reason for people to get upset because of UBF and FOIL.Theres several issues going on here. One is you talk about FOIL itself, theres a need for some

balance here between transparency, which we would all agree is utterly important, and privacy ofdonors, you know, philanthropic donor who doesnt want to be known for whatever reason, the

anonymous gift that was given to UBs Medical School by a country physician, right. He wantedto remain anonymous, he doesnt want his wife and children to be called up for every charity on

the block. I think we have to respect that. How do we, in science, whats the common vehicle inorder to ensure objectivity? We disclose everything. The reports that get issued, the papers that

get issued, Ill put down on the paper, this report was funded by such and so, and now someonecan look and try to ascertain, does that seem like it biases the report, or not? I think those are

really important issues to understand that in science disclosure is the method that we use in orderto ensure the objectivity, as you say, is so necessary for us.

SA.So Dr. Bruce Pitman, if youd bear with me for thirty more seconds, Id like to talk with you

for a few more minutes.

Dean Bruce Pitman. Sure.

Ms. Susan Arbetter.Well be right back. . . . Were talking about the controversy surrounding areport that UBs new Shale Institute came out with a few weeks ago. So, Dr. Bruce Pitman is the

Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at UB. So, I guess that the big question is how credible,how do we know if research is credible?

Dean Bruce Pitman. Sure. I mean its an important question. Let me take it out of the question

of the Shale Institute and the controversies specifically around that. We have folks in the medicalschool. They do research in cancer, and the American Cancer Society may issue a request for

proposals to study, I dont know, cancer risks from estrogen therapy. A researcher writes aproposal, it gets accepted, she does her study, she writes several papers, comes to some

conclusions, and discloses, The American Cancer Society funded this paper. Its not like ACScan dictate the conclusions of a paper, the findings of that paper. There is a wall of separation

between the funding source and the actual conclusions that are drawn in a study, in anexperiment, or in a paper. Thats the way we operate.

Ms. Susan Arbetter. But the American Cancer Society, for example, while it is a huge

institution, its goal is to, you know, cure cancer, raise money for research and cure cancer.Something like the Marcellus Shale Foundation, this is backed by Encona and Chesapeake.


5/5

5

These are for-profit industries that want one thing to their fiduciary responsibilities, to makemoney for their shareholders.

Dean Bruce Pitman. Uh hmn. Sure. And if they were to give money to whomever whatever

research entity, be it a university or an independent think tank, the idea is that there has to be a

wall of separation between those gifts and the conclusions, the outcomes of a particular study,right? Part of what we do in the sciences is to ensure that that wall of separation is there. Youknow, a newspaper takes money from advertisers. You know also that those folks have

commercial interests. We hope and we trust that the editorial content of that newspape r isntunduly influenced by the advertisers.

Ms. Susan Arbetter.Well were running of time. I think that youve been extremely

forthcoming. But would you admit that there were mistakes made with this report?

Dean Bruce Pitman. There are certainly some typos in the report. Ive been in touch with theauthor about one or two that I spotted when I read the report. I think theyre going to be issuing

an errata with those typos. Therere a couple of them. If youre asking do I want to distancemyself from the report or anything like that, Susan, I think the report stands on its own merits.

As you say, a few people at least should read the report, look at the analysis, look at the analysisfrom APIs [sic, PAIs] study, you may come to the different conclusion than either of those

groups is . . . the data is out there.

Ms. Susan Arbetter. Dr. Bruce Pitman. Thank you.

Dean Bruce Pitman. . Thank you Susan.

susan arbetter interviews ub dean bruce pitman

Documents