Faculty and researchers associated with the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment are welcoming the University’s recent announcement that it will resume accepting research funding from various fossil fuel companies that meet its dissociation criteria.
However, top researchers whose work was affected, directly or indirectly, told The Daily Princetonian that they were surprised at the decision — saying they were not consulted prior to the announcement of the decision.
The initial list of companies slated for dissociation, finalized in 2022, was made partially based on the recommendations of the Faculty Panel on Dissociation Metrics, Principles, and Standards. Director of the University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative and Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Emeritus Steve Pacala, who served on the committee, told the ‘Prince’ that he held reservations about the dissociation process even at the early stages, as he felt the decision was likely to lead to “counterproductive activity.”
“After all, as a species, we continue to need to use fossil fuels for a little while,” Pacala said. “In any case, I wasn’t too surprised when the University decided they needed to amend their rules.”
Per a 2022 decision, fossil fuel dissociation involved “refraining, to the greatest extent possible, from any relationships that involve a financial component with a particular company,” including “soliciting or accepting gifts or grants from a company, purchasing the company’s products, or forming partnerships with the company that depend upon the exchange of money.”
Now, researchers may once again accept funds from dissociated companies, or those that meet dissociation criteria if the “funds will be used for research projects that aim to produce environmental benefits.”
Other faculty who were not on the panel recalled that they felt left out of the dissociation discussion. Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering Lynn Loo GS ’01, who served as Director of the Andlinger Center from 2016 to 2021 and currently serves as CEO of the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation, told the ‘Prince’ that the initial dissociation in 2021 came as a “surprise.”
Loo recalled reading that faculty had been “consulted broadly,” but she noted, “certainly I wasn’t consulted, and I think there are other faculty members who feel that way as well.”
Though the professors interviewed by the ‘Prince’ said that they didn’t experience significant issues with project funding following dissociation, several did express frustration at the effects of fossil fuel dissociation on their research.
Chemical and biological engineering professor Sankaran Sundaresan, who has worked with Exxon Mobil Corp. for over 30 years, told the ‘Prince’ that the dissociation decision negatively affected the progress of several projects he was working on, including research on multiphase flows and making ammonia.
“Several of us felt that this came out of a group where it was not broadly consulted, and we were never asked what we were working on with [the] money and how we would [be impacted],” Sundaresan told the ‘Prince.’
Beyond the matter of funding, many professors also viewed the initial divestment decision as a threat to academic freedom, saying faculty alone should be responsible for determining their own research.
Researchers have raised concerns that fossil fuel money may influence the research professors produce. Faculty that the ‘Prince’ spoke to, however, dismissed these concerns.
“The companies that I have worked with are totally science based… at least I’ve never been screened of what I can say, what I cannot say, by these companies. And every part of my work has been published,” Sundaresan said.
“Part of what attracts the best minds to a university is the idea that there’s academic freedom, right?” Loo said, arguing that faculty should ultimately decide what research they want to conduct.
Eric Larson, a senior research engineer in the Andlinger Center, told the ‘Prince’ that there are examples of research being used to help fossil fuel companies directly.
“In the most extreme case, you’re helping an oil company get more oil out of the ground. That’s not something that I would want to be doing as a researcher myself,” Larson said. But he added that he sees some of his work funded by fossil fuels as fruitful for climate solutions. For example, “it’s difficult to see how we solve the climate problem without having some carbon capture and storage in the mix,” he added.
Carbon capture and storage technologies have been criticized by activists as a form of greenwashing and delaying the fossil fuel transition.
Faculty also reported that the recent decision on research funding caught them off-guard, similar to the 2022 dissociation announcement. Though several professors had heard murmurs of internal discontent, they said there was no indication that the dissociation decision would happen at all before the announcement was made to the general University community.
“We didn’t have anything to do with it. I mean, this is something the University just did,” Pacala said, referring to the faculty committee assembled in 2022.
Loo told the ‘Prince’ that in some cases, interactions with Princeton researchers has led to policy change within fossil fuel companies.
“We were able to have this communication with the researchers and scientists at Exxon Mobil, and I believe that this is how one can impact and effect change,” she said. “In fact, Exxon Mobil folks have told me that it was through interactions with the faculty members at the Andlinger Center that the concept of net zero is now part of their conversations.”
“This indicates how we’re moving the needle. It’s beyond the funding. It’s these interactions that are really important,” she added.
Exxon Mobil did not provide comment to the ‘Prince’ by the time of publication.
When Princeton first announced that it would dissociate from 90 fossil fuel companies in 2022, some climate activists hailed the decision as a victory for the fossil fuel divestment movement — spearheaded by campus climate advocacy group Divest Princeton. Still, the group believed that the policy was not comprehensive enough, writing in a press release, “It is regrettable that Shell and BP, two of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world, responsible for devastating and ongoing damage, are not on the list.”
Now that Princeton has changed its stance on dissociation, faculty members noted that their fossil fuel companies may be wary of rebuilding research relationships.
“I imagine I would love it if fossil fuel companies felt safe to come and talk to us about how they navigate the energy transition, what research we can do for them, if they would even be interested in hearing our view about the fact that they need to go stronger and harder on emissions reductions,” Chris Grieg, Associate Director for External Partnerships and Senior Research Scientist at the Andlinger Center, told the ‘Prince.’
“I suspect that there’s some reputational damage that will make that harder going forward, because the decision was made, and now we can roll it back,” Grieg said.
University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill declined to comment on the professors’ reactions and referred the ‘Prince’ to the administration’s October letter.
Andrea Goldsmith, Princeton’s Dean of Engineering and Applied Science, wrote to the ‘Prince’ that the recent decision would allow for more research and more impact.
“This change will allow engineering faculty and students to pursue valuable collaborations with industry in important areas of engineering research that were precluded by the 2022 disassociation decision,” Goldsmith wrote.
Christopher Bao is an assistant News editor and the accessibility director for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Princeton, N.J. and typically covers town politics and life.
Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.
Read More
Opposition to weapons divestment referendum takes shape
Annie Rupertus and Miriam WaldvogelAs the vote on USG referenda approach, their opposition is taking shape. This is especially true of the controversial Referendum No. 5, which calls on the University to divest from weapons manufacturers.
As the vote on USG referenda approach, their opposition is taking shape. This is especially true of the controversial Referendum No. 5, which calls on the University to divest from weapons manufacturers.
Play the Friday crossword, ‘Having a Cow’
Claire Kaneshiro and Jessica CurranBlast off into this legend-dairy puzzle by Senior Constructor Claire Kaneshiro and Contributing Constructor Jessica Curran.
Blast off into this legend-dairy puzzle by Senior Constructor Claire Kaneshiro and Contributing Constructor Jessica Curran.
Haitian Creole language courses coming to Princeton’s French and Italian department in the next year
Isaac BernsteinPrinceton’s French and Italian Department is adding a Haitian Creole course in Fall 2025 or Spring 2026 taught by Lecturer Johnny Laforêt. Offerings may eventually expand to additional 200-level electives as well.
Princeton’s French and Italian Department is adding a Haitian Creole course in Fall 2025 or Spring 2026 taught by Lecturer Johnny Laforêt. Offerings may eventually expand to additional 200-level electives as well.
