Abstract
Corporate Influence on Peer-Reviewed Research: Insights from BP’s Deepwater Horizon Response
Marc-Andre Gagnon,1 Blue Miaoran Dong2
Objective
This study investigates BP’s influence on peer-reviewed research in the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, with particular attention to how corporate oversight shaped the production and publication of scientific knowledge about the disaster and its aftermath. Despite the scale and impact of the incident, no academic work to date has systematically analyzed BP’s internal documents—made public during litigation—or assessed their role in steering scholarly discourse through subtle or direct influence on academic journals.
Design
Our study, grounded in 9 internal BP documents made public by The Downs Law Group (https://downslawgroup.com/bp-papers/), systematically examines BP’s publication strategies. These documents reveal the extensive oversight of BP’s legal and editorial teams in shaping the content of academic articles related to the spill. By analyzing publication plans, journal selection processes, thematic focuses, and the assertions made in these papers, we provide crucial insights into the challenges and manipulations inherent in peer review, scientific publication, and research dissemination.
Results
The analysis highlights BP’s direct role in the production of 37 peer-reviewed articles, as identified in one of the 9 leaked internal documents, “Scientific Literature Publication Tracker.”1 The body of literature under review was published between 2011 and 2024. Collaborating with institutions such as Florida International University, Oregon State University, SINTEF research company, and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, BP shaped research agendas, defined testing protocols, and influenced interpretations of results. A large portion of the articles (33) focused on “seeps,” emphasizing natural seepage and exploration risks, while other themes included surf waters (18 articles), dispersants (12 articles), oil weathering (11 articles), and Corexit (6 articles). These studies often advanced conclusions that aligned with BP’s strategic interests, such as promoting the ecological and economic benefits of chemical dispersants. Notably, less frequent topics like phototoxicity (3 articles) or biological impacts received comparatively limited attention. BP’s editorial practices frequently framed findings within narrowly defined scopes to minimize ecological and legal accountability, steering the scientific narrative away from issues that could increase its liability. Among 37 articles, 17 did not disclose BP’s involvement in the writing process, while 21 articles explicitly acknowledged BP’s role. Although the 21 articles mentioned BP’s funding and their receipt of a portion of the $500 million allocated through the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, they did not disclose any editorial review conducted by BP (Table 25-0937).
Conclusions
The findings reveal vulnerabilities in the peer-review process, where corporate influence can compromise the objectivity and integrity of scientific research. BP’s involvement demonstrates how editorial control and selective dissemination of findings can obscure accountability and shift public discourse. Enhanced transparency and robust safeguards are essential to protect the integrity of research and ensure it prioritizes public interest over corporate objectives.
Reference
1. BP. BP Scientific Literature Publication Tracker. Published online November 29, 2022. Accessed May 19, 2025. https://downslawgroup.com/bp-papers/
1The School of Public Policy, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, ma.gagnon@carleton.ca; 2School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
None reported.
Funding/Support
This research is financially supported by an Insight Grant awarded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) under the reference number 435-2021-0715, along with funding from the SSHRC Initiative for Digital Citizen Research under the reference number 1403-2021-0715.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor
SSHRC did not play any role in the work described in the abstract.