In an article published last week in Climatic Change, Camilla Ceccon, Truzaar Dordi and Jennie Stephens revealed that policies on funding for academic research at several universities are failing to defend against the economic power of fossil fuel corporations. In the UK, 60 universities accepted at least €170 million between 2016 and 2023, with Shell emerging as the largest contributor to university funding. This means that we cannot be certain that academic research is not being shaped or swayed by the profit-seeking interests of these corporations, which would side-line the public interest of much of this research.

In the first-of-its-kind study, the authors examined 39 research policies across UK and US universities, comparing them with public media discourse on financing of higher education research by the fossil fuel industry. Their research determined that issues of climate delay narratives, greenwashing and disinformation were frequently mentioned in news media about research funding, but were found lacking in policy documents by higher education institutions.

Public discourse, in news media, has presented industry funding as a method of climate obstruction and delay. Oxford University accepted donations of more than £1.6 million from fossil fuel companies during 2020-21, as highlighted by the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign. This was met by backlash and concerns that these companies were using their connection with the university to improve their public image by investing in a well-respected institution.

The university’s policy on funding from the fossil-fuel industry is conditional – funds are permitted only if the research has either no connection to extraction or if its purpose explicitly speeds the transition to net-zero carbon. Whilst this is better than the many universities which do not mention the fossil fuel industry by name in their research funding policies, Oxford could take further steps to take meaningful action by extending restrictions and advocating for unified funding policies across institutions. These are just some of the recommendations that the paper suggests, alongside dedicated oversight mechanisms and clear gift acceptance guidelines.

This study is particularly important amongst concerns about climate disinformation. Philip Newell, communications co-chair for Climate Action Against Disinformation told us: “Like Big Tobacco before them, the fossil fuel industry uses its money to buy credibility, and too many institutions are willing to sell. Universities should protect their students, researchers, reputations and the planet by refusing the corrupting influence of fossil fuel funding.”

Climate change misinformation and disinformation undermines not only the existence and impacts of climate change, but also trust in climate science and climate-focused experts. Research by the UK Government Office for Science found that climate misinformation led to reduced climate literacy, greater ideological polarisation (hindering cross-party climate policy), and implications on how climate scientists work and communicate with the public. Higher education institutions, sitting at the forefront of climate change research, maintain responsibility for ensuring that climate science is both accurately and effectively conveyed to the public audience.

Just as universities disengaged from controversial funding sources like Big Tobacco before, universities can and should refuse to accept funding from fossil fuel corporations. Clearly, the precedent for rejecting this funding exists, but the pressing urgency of climate change demands more immediate action.

The University of Oxford was contacted for a comment, but we did not receive a response.