{shortcode-ca7c43c5f2fe2657d911fd4b2923e73a639e6687}

This past week, I joined students across the Harvard community in celebrating “Intersectional Earth Week.” The event, hosted by Harvard Climate Coalition, featured teach-ins, affinity gatherings that centered on sustainable consumption, and other activities.

The success of Intersectional Earth Week reflects Harvard student support for environmentalist initiatives, but these aren’t the only strides Harvard has made towards a more sustainable campus in recent years.

In 2021, the Harvard Management Corporation declared it would divest from fossil fuels. A year later, the University announced the creation of the Salata Institute — an organization dedicated entirely to the clean energy transition and climate. And recently, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences significantly expanded the number of climate-oriented courses it offers.

Such initiatives indicate that Harvard is somewhat dedicated, or at least aware, of the importance of leading on the climate.

Despite this progress, none of Harvard’s schools possess an explicit policy for rejecting research funding from fossil fuel companies. One of the events of Intersectional Earth Week — a rally I organized with Fossil Fuel Divest Harvard — directly urged Harvard’s schools to disavow these funds. This is crucial because fossil fuel companies have historically funded disinformation campaigns for their economic benefit.

After scientists at Exxon routinely presented findings showing a link between carbon emissions and environmental destruction, the company decided to help create the “Global Climate Coalition.” This organization sowed doubt about research indicative of an impending climate crisis, impeding global climate agreements.

ExxonMobil has continued to meddle in climate research through the provision of research grants to universities — including Harvard.

Before fossil fuels, big tobacco also used research grants to manipulate studies in favor of their products.

In 1954, tobacco companies formed a research organization known as the “Tobacco Industry Research Company,” intending to dissuade the public that there was an explicit link between tobacco consumption and lung cancer. This misinformation undoubtedly resulted in significant health consequences given that smoking related illnesses are estimated to have led to the deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th century.

The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health announced a policy in 2002 barring the acceptance of monetary assistance from the tobacco industry. Two years later, Harvard Medical School followed. Standing firm in their commitments to rejecting the tobacco industry’s research donations is a move that preserves the independence of their health research.

The lack of such a policy regarding fossil fuels similarly undermines our reputation as one of the world’s premier research institutions, and stalls Harvard’s ability to be a leader on climate.

Research studies that receive grants from fossil fuel companies tend to produce results that praise the benefits of non-renewable energy sources like oil and natural gas. However, research studies that do not tend to receive such funding paint a contrasting picture that more closely aligns with the scientific consensus on the detrimental effects of fossil fuel usage.

In order to ensure that researchers can remain objective in their scholarship, Harvard has an ethical imperative to reject grants from fossil fuel entities.

The climate crisis has significantly widespread health implications, similar to big tobacco. Take for example, higher rates of respiratory illness of communities located near major highways, or the myriad of deaths that have resulted from natural disasters in recent years. The evidence is clear — the climate crisis is actively damaging our health and livelihoods. By this logic, it is a moral imperative to create a similar funding policy for energy companies that rely on fossil fuels.

Despite no institutional policy, Harvard’s individual schools, departments, and researchers have a unique opportunity to lead the way on rejecting fossil fuel company grants.

While many researchers have already taken this pledge, my message to everyone, but especially students pursuing research at Harvard is clear: reject funding offers from fossil fuel companies.

Jasmine N. Wynn ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Thayer Hall and is an organizer with Fossil Fuel Divest Harvard.