A dispute has intensified between the venerable 363-year-old Royal Society of Britain and over 2,000 UK academics regarding the organization's reluctance to acknowledge the role of oil and gas companies in climate change. The academics, in a letter sent last year, voiced apprehensions about the potential influence of fossil fuel companies on scientific research to the Royal Society, which has a rich history dating back to 1660, counting luminaries like Isaac Newton among its ranks. Despite these concerns, the Royal Society has declined their request for a clear acknowledgment of the fossil fuel industry's responsibility in exacerbating the climate crisis.

In response, Treasurer Jonathan Keating stated in a recent communication that issuing such an "unambiguous statement" would not be suitable, citing the necessity for multiple stakeholders to grapple with the multifaceted nature of the climate crisis. The academics' reservations regarding the sway of oil and gas companies also extend to allegations that connections to BP were not disclosed by a Cambridge professor in a Royal Society policy briefing document, which was produced by a working group he chaired in 2022.

Professor Andy Woods, formerly the head of the BP Institute, a research entity funded by the oil and gas giant, underwent a renaming to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Flows under Cambridge University's auspices last year. Additionally, Woods holds the official title of BP Professor, a position endowed by the company. Notably, these affiliations were omitted from the document's references. The Royal Society's briefing document advocates for substantial and sustained investment in geological carbon capture and storage, a technology championed by the fossil fuel industry to expand operations while mitigating emissions. Contributors to the report include a CO₂ storage advisor to BP and a director for CO₂ storage at the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.

Although Woods's expertise in geophysical fluid flows and his connection to BP are acknowledged elsewhere in the Royal Society's fellowship directory, both BP and Woods declined to comment on the matter. The Royal Society maintains that the document clearly delineates contributors' affiliations and emphasizes its commitment to publishing diverse research. These tensions underscore the broader discord within academia regarding funding and involvement in research by oil and gas companies, as well as the growing activism among students and staff on university campuses.

The Royal Society's decision to refrain from explicitly condemning the fossil fuel industry was criticized as "moral cowardice" by James Dyke, a professor of earth system science at Exeter University. Another signatory to the original letter, Bill McGuire, a professor of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London, expressed astonishment that a reputable scientific organization would not acknowledge the role of fossil fuel companies in driving climate change.

Meanwhile, student activists at Oxford University have focused their attention on Myles Allen, the author of a set of green principles utilized by the university to guide decisions regarding investments and grants from oil and gas corporations. Through freedom of information requests, these campaigners revealed that Allen, who served as the head of atmospheric, oceanic, and planetary physics at Oxford, participated in 18 meetings where representatives from major oil and gas companies, such as BP, Shell, Exxon, or Equinor, were present. Among these meetings, five were organized by Shell, three of which centered on the company's strategy and climate scenarios.

In response, Allen stated that during these meetings, he advocated for fossil fuel companies to invest in carbon capture and storage technologies, a solution he has long championed for reducing future carbon dioxide emissions. He emphasized the collective responsibility to aid the fossil fuel industry in addressing rather than exacerbating the climate crisis. Oxford University defended its collaborations with industry, including the fossil fuel sector, stating that such partnerships facilitate research on critical global issues, including climate-related challenges.

The student campaigners called for Oxford University to undertake an independent evaluation of its engagement with donations and investments from the fossil fuel sector. Following similar concerns, Cambridge University opted to temporarily suspend the acceptance of grants and donations from the industry in March.