Appalachian Basin

‘Absolutely Objective’ Peer Reviewer Gives ‘Victory’ Speech at New York Anti-Fracking Party

Poet, biologist and political activist Sandra Steingraber appears in this 2014 “Ban Fracking Now” video.

The peer reviewer of a research paper used to ban shale gas development in New York gave a victory speech to an anti-fracking celebration this week, just days after she called herself “absolutely objective” in an interview with a news reporter.

“[I]t is so sweet now to come together in one room to tell the story of our victory over the shale gas army to each other,” Sandra Steingraber told a Jan. 21 anti-fracking victory party in Albany, according to the activist website EcoWatch.

Steingraber – a self-described poet, biologist and advocate – was one of three shale gas opponents who peer-reviewed a research paper claiming “potentially dangerous” pollution levels near oil and natural gas wells. The authors of the paper were shale gas opponents, too, but these clear conflicts of interest were not disclosed. This violates well-established codes of conduct for scientific research, as Energy In Depth first detailed on the news and analysis website Breaking Energy.

Even so, this paper was used to support New York Health Commissioner Howard Zucker’s decision to ban shale gas development. Zucker even held up the paper – literally – as an example of “bona fide scientific literature” during a Dec. 17 press conference with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announcing the shale gas ban.

The Cuomo administration has refused to answer questions about the affair. When a reporter started to investigate, her calls and e-mails to Cuomo’s office were not returned. Meanwhile, Steingraber – co-founder of the group New Yorkers Against Fracking – told the same reporter there was no problem peer-reviewing a paper about shale gas development when you’re also an outspoken opponent of shale gas development. According to the Jan. 19 news story, Steingraber said:

“I think we are all proud of our ability to be conservative and analytical and absolutely objective about the data. I look at the data and call it as I see it.”

Two days later, Steingraber gave her speech to the anti-fracking victory party at the Hilton Hotel in Albany. Here are some more highlights, according to EcoWatch:

“We are the maker of this story that has been shaped by our unceasing, unrelenting efforts—all of which mattered and made a difference.

Every rally. Every march. Every jug of Dimock water. Every public comment. Every local ban. Every letter to the editor. Every letter to the Governor. Every concert. Every expert testimony at every hearing.

It all mattered.

Every phone call. Every media story. Every press conference. Every petition signature. Every chant. Every sign and banner. Every birddogging mission.

And every alarm clock that rang at 3:30 a.m. to take every person to every bus to Albany every time we came here for the past five years…

Our next battle is fracking infrastructure—from Seneca Lake to Port Ambrose, from the Constitution pipeline to the Dominion New Market Project, and from drill cuttings to liquid waste dumping.

As we go after these various proposals and projects, our work now diversifies and become more diffuse. But, happily, our skill set has also diversified. We’ve learned a lot over the past five years, we are battle tested, and we have wind in our wings.

Against fracking infrastructure, we will prevail. I am playing to win.”

As Energy In Depth first noted on Breaking Energy, the factual basis for New York’s shale gas ban has been shaky from the start, but the revelation that Steingraber and other shale gas opponents were lobbying the Cuomo administration while also producing scientific research used by the Cuomo administration takes the debate to a new level.

We now know at least one of Zucker’s “bona fide” research papers was the creation of shale gas opponents who subverted the peer-review process. Even more disturbing, some of those activists are senior figures in the campaign that successfully lobbied Zucker and Gov. Cuomo to block hydraulic fracturing for shale gas in New York.

This means shale-gas opponents wrote a paper, reviewed a paper and then convinced the State of New York to act upon the findings of a paper as though it was independent research. It also means the paper was misrepresented to the scientific community and the general public as “bona fide” research, not just by the authors and the reviewers, but by New York Health Commissioner Howard Zucker himself.

Did Zucker know about this, or was he deceived like the rest of us? And if Zucker calls this paper “bona fide” research, how are we supposed to trust his judgment on the others he used to justify New York’s shale gas ban? We continue to believe these are urgent questions that demand urgent answers from officials in the Cuomo administration, despite their best efforts to ignore them.

  • Gerald Brickwood
    Posted at 10:15h, 23 January Reply

    OK. I get the objection to reviewers who start the investigation with a pre-determined outset in mind. I was able to read a very small part of one of the studies used by Cuomo & Co., the one that purported to have studied health effects on the proximity to gas wells in Washington County PA. But, I never read through the entire report.

    So please tell me, instead of merely objecting to the reviewers, where can I find a detailed rebuttal to that report? Perhaps one that lists the health condition of the subject persons in the study before the start of drilling? If nothing else can you provide a source for the Washington County study?

  • Fred Peckham
    Posted at 11:58h, 23 January Reply

    As the anties themselves admit is was political science not scientific science that decided the outcome. Shows the progressive care only about their pocketbooks and not the health and welfare of the folks that live there

  • Bill
    Posted at 14:04h, 23 January Reply

    anything done on a person property that exceeds the boudaries of that property and causes nuisances to other’s living near by is a legal matter and will certainly be handled as such !

  • Bipartisan Coalition of Senators Rejects Attempt to Put EPA in Control of Fracking | Latest Oil and Gas Jobs
    Posted at 13:09h, 29 January Reply

    […] politicians in New York are back at it again, pushing the agenda of activists opposed to responsible oil and gas development over the facts. This week, U.S. Senator Kirsten […]

  • Most Outrageous Anti-Fracking Stunts of 2015
    Posted at 16:55h, 22 December Reply

    […] “ban fracking” activist Sandra Steingraber, (amazingly) one of the peer reviewers on a “study” New York regulators used to justify a ban on fracking […]

  • Poll Commissioned by Anti-Fracking Group Once Again Pushes Misinformation to Marylanders
    Posted at 15:39h, 27 October Reply

    […] based on “studies” funded, written, peer reviewed, and pushed out by activists who have publicly acknowledged their biases toward the process.  Energy In Depth has written about extensively and […]

Post A Comment