It's official: SRSI is shut down.
Last Monday, President Tripathi announced in a faculty email he would be closing the highly contested Shale Resources and Society Institute, citing criticism regarding the institute's funding ambiguity and a lack of "sufficient faculty presence."
The "cloud of uncertainty" that Tripathi mentions in his letter is not isolated to just SRSI, however, as it still lingers over the university. The institute's opposition celebrates its victory, but as our school appears in more and more headlines across the country, we must ask what the victory really is.
There are always two ways to look at a situation, and SRSI was in the wrong on both sides. The only thing the institute issued in its eight-month history was a pro-fracking report that, according to Public Accountability Initiative (PAI), had incorrect calculations. Aside from its controversial stance, it refused to be transparent in regard to its funding, founding and governance despite allegations that it had industry ties.
So to follow a mission of making sure UB's faculty members "adhereto rigorous standards of academic integrity, intellectual honesty, transparency, and the highest ethical conduct in their work" and clearly buckling under the pressure from the SUNY Board of Trustees's investigation, SRSI was gone. And in its place stands an array of questions and doubt about the school's reputation.
As a Carnegie-classified Research University with Very High Research Activity, UB has an obligation to research topics like hydrofracking. As Tripathi stated in his letter, "given our geographic situation as well as our extensive faculty expertise in issues related to energy, water, and the environment, the University at Buffalo is positioned to play a leading research role in these areas.
"Understanding and addressing these issues effectively therefore requires a program of sufficient scale to encompass the scope and complexities of this topic."
Unfortunately for the school and for Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Bruce Pitman, it is how you go about the research that matters.
It's easy to get lost in the details of fracking and private funding, but as a student, the reputation of your school should matter. The negative connotation UB now has - whether the stories are true or false - is what your school is facing and what your school will be known for on a national level until the attention dies out. The same people who have been against SRSI who do not have any affiliation with UB now see UB's research in a different light.
Under aforementioned pressure after SUNY launched its investigation, the university did what it felt it had to and closed the institute in an effort to look proactive. By closing it, it's a wave of the white flag and in most cases proof that it was in the wrong.
But nobody has actually admitted they did anything wrong.
Pitman has been ardent through the investigation that SRSI hasn't been hiding anything and even stated, "We have had an ongoing examination of issues - policies, practices - nothing was found to be wrong." According to him, the institute closed because the "continuing onslaught of allegations without any backing ... have just made it impossible for the institute to do what it was designed to do."
Which, according to the institute, was to "provide accurate, research-based information on the development of shale and other unconventional resources."
If it believed it could do that and was doing nothing wrong, why close?
As pointed out by The New York Times, UB's decision is the most extreme response to date of criticism of academic bias in fracking-related research. The other side of the anti-SRSI arguments has considered the implications of closing SRSI versus trying to fix what was broken.
If the institute was formed for a specific design, would it not be possible - despite Pitman's claims - to reconstitute it with members from both sides of the issue and to actually make an attempt to be honest and transparent about it? Was there no possibility that it could have ultimately achieved its goal?
None of that is clear, unfortunately. UB put everything on the line for money over credibility, and now it must suffer the consequences and backlash, and on his first year on the job as dean, this is what is on Bruce Pitman's r?(c)sum?(c). As the school moves forward from this, he will have to hope the public will trust the school and department again for future research.
Email: editorial@ubspectrum.com
