Report Upholds Values of Academic Freedom and Recommends Additional Transparency

Columbia University should require additional disclosure of research funding from fossil fuel companies, but should not institute a blanket restriction on such funding, as that would threaten the very academic freedom that is a fundamental tenet of the University, according to a faculty committee charged with examining the implications of such financial relationships and exploring the full landscape of fossil fuel funding of research at Columbia. 

The Committee on Research Funding From Fossil Fuel Companies published its final report today. In it, the panel found the University already has many protections in place to mitigate the potential for undue industry influence, and should increase means of transparency and tracking of such funds.

“In many disciplines, funding is inherent to academic freedom. That is, researchers require funding to conduct the research they choose to pursue. For this reason, unrestricted access to potential funding sources, as an element of academic freedom, became an essential consideration,” the committee wrote. At the same time, the committee also “recognized and reaffirmed the importance of mitigating the risk of bias and appearance of bias in University research,” and recommended the University reaffirm and strengthen existing norms of transparency regarding funding sources for University research, particularly for entities that receive general-purpose gift funding for research from fossil fuel companies.

The committee was first convened in summer 2024, born of Columbia’s commitment to combatting the global climate crisis after calls by some members of the University community to disassociate from fossil fuel companies. 

The University has made a significant commitment to environmental sustainability, including establishing the nation’s first Climate School; creating an Office of Sustainability; adopting Plan 2030 to achieve net zero emissions; and committing to sustainable investment, as well as ceasing investment in publicly traded oil and gas companies. However, these actions did not address the question of the potential risk of research funding sources.

Key Questions the Committee Addressed

The committee was charged with examining several key questions, among them: Should Columbia continue to receive support from fossil fuel companies for its research and research-related activities, and, if so, what are the associated risks? Should all fossil fuel companies be considered with the same approach? What criteria should be used to assess funding opportunities and whether or not they should be accepted?

Chaired by Sarah Cole, Dean of the School of the Arts and Parr Professor of English and Comparative Literature, and Keren Bergman, Charles Batchelor Professor of Electrical Engineering, the committee included experts from Architecture, Arts and Sciences, Business, Climate, Engineering, International and Public Affairs, Journalism, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Law, and Public Health, as well as graduate and undergraduate student liaisons. 

Participation in all committee meetings was robust, the chairs said, and the scope, nature, and depth of the deliberations was extensive, weighty, and respectful.

“At the outset, we did not know what the outcome would be, whether or not we would recommend restrictions on fossil fuel funding. There were no preconceived conclusions. The committee is comprised of some of the greatest scholars and leaders on climate change and sustainability at Columbia, with experience and disciplinary knowledge of great range and variety. It is a testament to the nuanced nature of what we learned, and to the depth and rigor of our discussions and research on the topic, that we ended up with a strong consensus among this varied and distinguished group,” Cole said.

The scale of research funding from fossil fuel companies at Columbia remains extremely small: Over the last five years, a mere 0.1% of Columbia’s sponsored research and 3% of gift funding was linked to fossil fuel companies. 

The committee found no conclusive evidence of undue influence connected with Columbia research funding by companies with ties to fossil fuels, the chairs said. The committee noted that conflict of interest risks associated with general purpose gifts are greater than those of sponsored projects, because they are subject to less oversight and transparency and are less easy to trace directly to a single project.

The relatively small amount of funding from fossil fuel companies was not a primary factor in the committee’s recommendations; protecting academic freedom continued to surface as the prevailing concern, along with the practical difficulty of isolating specific companies for prohibition.

“Certainly, there are some fields where you don’t need a lot of resources, where a paper and pen are enough,” Bergman said. “But especially in science research, you need the resources to be able to pursue those research questions. You need research funding to pay for the materials, supplies, labs, research assistants."

She added that “by clamping down or restricting sources of research funding, you are clamping down on the academic right to pursue that research.” 

Two student representatives played a key role in the work of the committee: Ian Segall, Columbia College class of 2027 who is studying chemistry and sustainable development; and Kevin Frankenfeld, who had served as president of Columbia’s Climate School student body. The two were responsible for gathering student insights by encouraging participation in a written survey and meeting with graduate and undergraduate groups for more qualitative input.

“We wanted to make sure we really gave space to have all perspectives,” said Segall. “People can be impassioned when discussing climate. I was really glad to see people’s flexibility about hearing other perspectives and opinions.”

The written survey was distributed through University-wide communications platforms and through targeted outreach to vice deans for research, who provided the survey to their research communities. It was open for responses from September 2024 to April 2025. And while the 181 responses ranged widely from opposing acceptance of funds to accepting funds unconditionally or with conditions, where the committee landed ultimately was guided by Columbia’s values of freedom of speech and discourse—and the need for greater transparency.

“When you don’t have that transparency, it creates a situation where you can fill the void with whatever your fears are about it,” Frankenfeld said. “I think providing transparency is super helpful.”

The committee was also cognizant of a shift across academia toward private research funding, as well as federal funding challenges. The discussions of the committee began in fall 2024 before President Trump resumed the presidency and the substance of the work was concluded by spring 2025, before the full impact of recent federal cuts was felt. Both Cole and Bergman said the federal funding landscape was discussed but did not shape the ultimate findings or conclusions.

The committee also found it would be “neither practical nor coherent” to try to differentiate among fossil fuel companies to make some eligible to supply funding and others not.

The Committee Also Examined Peer Institutions

During the course of the work together, the committee also examined peer institutions that had already addressed the question: Stanford University takes an even broader stance protective of academic freedom and no restrictions on funding; Princeton University had taken steps to try to put restrictions in place on certain fossil fuel companies and wound up reversing course on some restrictions, while others remain in place.

A key discussion point was around reputational risk. As the committee acknowledged: “Continuing to accept these funds for research could be seen as insufficiently committed to combatting climate change, which is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels, contrary to the University’s stated mission to support a sustainable future. Additionally, many of these firms, directly and indirectly, have contributed to a decades-long campaign of deception and denial about this reality, even as their own scientific research was clear on the links between fossil fuels and climate change. Taking these industry funds also runs the risk of helping to entrench fossil fuels by enabling fossil fuel companies to influence the terms of the debate on energy and climate solutions, and at the same time, burnish their own reputations through an association with Columbia.” However, the committee also noted the reputational risk of prohibiting acceptance of research funding from fossil fuel companies, including “the perception that the University is biased against certain research pursuits.”

Another important question was whether funding could be restricted to only certain beneficial purposes. The committee ultimately did not “explicitly recommend requiring that all fossil-fuel funded research should be undertaken with the goal of working toward sustainability and renewable energy sources.” However, the committee noted that “these values are very widely held among researchers at Columbia and drive many of the current, and likely future, projects,” and that it “shares the University’s stated goals of marshaling our research enterprise toward a future of sustainable energy and environmental protection.”

“One of the aspects of the last year in academia and higher ed in general has been a focus on viewpoint diversity, and the University has reiterated that Columbia is not a one viewpoint place,” Cole said. “Even if there are many people in our community who believe that fossil fuel companies have been dishonest and culpable in the past, and still are, and who instinctively respond negatively to the idea of the University accepting research funds from such companies, in fact it’s a tricky thing for a university to step in and say, ‘we deem this entire industry to be outside the pale and their money to be dirty.’ It is the Columbia research and its importance for the future of our planet that we are eager to support.”

Better Data at the University and Unit Levels

The report noted that across all disciplines it is a scholarly norm to disclose funding sources for research in publications and presentations. The University’s Policy on Individual Financial Conflict of Interest and Research also states: “Transparency is paramount.” However, Columbia’s preexisting rules and protocol around conflict of interest, risk of bias, transparency, and research integrity should be given stronger institutional visibility. For example, the Office of the Executive Vice President for Research should publish on its website a section regarding academic freedom and research integrity and link to relevant policies. Additionally, better data at the University level about research funding sources will enable broader transparency. For this reason, the committee recommends that the University update the Alumni and Development and Sponsored Project Administration databases to include data elements that would make it easier to identify and report on funding specific to this industry.  

And more can be done at the unit level. The Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) at the School of International and Public Affairs has been the largest recipient of fossil fuel funding. Similar to a thinktank, the center conducts independent, evidence-based research on global energy and climate challenges. CGEP has a comprehensive webpage that discloses all gifts, not just those from fossil fuel companies. The committee supports those efforts and further recommends that the fact that an entity receives funding from fossil fuel companies be stated in a prominent location on an entity’s landing page, which would be in addition to already-existing documentation of funding sources elsewhere on a website. Published research or policy papers should link to the existing funding page that spells out details of the entity’s funding. The University should also consider obtaining an annual report to confirm compliance with these transparency obligations, placing responsibility on the entity in question. 

“Columbia has had stringent rules about conflict of interest and research bias for a long time. It is not as if those guardrails are new,” Cole said. “Rules and norms around integrity of research are a strong part of the University, it’s just that not many people know how rigorous and essential these norms already are, and we want to change that.”

The final report report can be read by visiting the Committee on Research Funding From Fossil Fuel Companies page.