Not too long ago, a reporter in the Mobile Press-Register revealed that BP was signing up scientists with signing bonuses and other ameliorations. In the contracts, it essentially stated that the work that was being paid for could not be published, shared or discussed for three years.
There was a large hue and cry, particularly from the research community. So much so that it appears that BP has changed the contracts.
Science (behind a paywall, I think) is reporting that has changed.
Now, in a largely unexpected and welcome move, BP has revised its contracts to remove these restrictions. And with NOAA relaxing its own restrictions on publishing assessment data, scientists are hopeful that the NRDA process will be less adversarial than they’d feared. A sample contract provided to Science by BP allows signers to publish “written research papers, presentations and similar documents reporting any environmental data obtained or produced” as a consultant after giving BP 30 days’ notice and a copy of the intended publication
This is good for everyone, including BP. They need to get it right, after all. And making it look like they were hiring experts and then controlling their science was not a good start. The article gives a nice example of why having an effective communication path between BP and others is worthwhile and important.
Fisheries scientist James Cowan wasn’t put off when a private consulting firm contacted him about helping BP with its oil spill research—indeed, he welcomed the opportunity. “I don’t want [BP] to take samples that give them the wrong information, so I’d just as soon help,” says Cowan, a professor at Louisiana State University (LSU), Baton Rouge. For instance, when a team under the direction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and BP went out with an acoustic instrument to verify the oil plumes reported by academic scientists, they came back empty-handed—until Cowan told the consulting firm that the team was likely using frequencies that couldn’t resolve the oil droplets at the depths they were searching. He suggested a different technique, and “now no one can deny the existence of the plumes, which many did for a very long time,” he says.
Trying to prevent a lot of bad data from complicating things is a very worthwhile goal.
And the fact that BP responded to the criticisms that resulted from a media article is very nice to see.
I’ve mentioned the use of managed ignorance by the media some recently. Here is an example of when the media actually educates people about a problem which results in a nice solution.
The media should really be spending more of its time educating and less dividing.
