The University of Washington, in a review launched by a Greenpeace complaint, has found that fishery professor Ray Hilborn did not violate university policies when he took money from the seafood industry for research published in academic journals.

Share story

The University of Washington, in a review launched by a Greenpeace complaint, has found that fishery professor Ray Hilborn did not violate university policies when he took money from the seafood industry for research published in academic journals.

Hilborn is a prominent UW professor with an international profile who has accused Greenpeace of overstating the impacts of fishing on marine resources.

Greenpeace, in a May complaint to UW president Ana Mari Cauce, requested the investigation. The complaint cited more than a half dozen articles published by Hilborn in which he allegedly did not fully disclosure his industry funding.

John Hocevar, Greenpeace USA’s ocean campaigns director, said Hilborn’s conduct put “both scientific knowledge and the reputation of the University of Washington at risk.”

UW spokesman Norm Arkans, in a written statement, said the university’s research office reviewed Hilborn’s grants, contracts, funding and attributions for outside work and consulting. There were “no problems” with compliance, Arkans wrote.

Hocevar said Greenpeace continues to investigate additional questions about Hilborn’s industry funding, including his paid testimony in legal cases involving the fishing industry. He said conflicts of interest can undermine confidence in research, and the public has a right to know where scientists get their funding.

Since 2002, Hilborn has brought in more than $3.55 million from industry to the University of Washington, representing about 33 percent of his outside funding during that period, according to documents released to Greenpeace under a public-disclosure request.

Some of the biggest industry funding came from groups in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska helping pay for salmon research. The money also has flowed from Washington-based seafood companies and trade associations.

Altogether, the documents obtained by Greenpeace indicate Hilborn drew funding from at least 69 different industry sources, as well as consulting payments from others.

Hilborn said he did not feel obligated to disclose such funding unless it was specifically for research that was the focus of an academic journal article, and that he never deliberately omitted mention of industry funding. Much of the money has been used for staff and student salaries.

“I have consistently acknowledged industry funding of my research,” he said.

He also has released emails from some of the publications contacted by Greenpeace about disclosure concerns. They include the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which published an April 2013 article that Hilborn authored that looked at chinook salmon in the Columbia River.

The Greenpeace complaint said Hilborn should have disclosed in a conflict-of-interest statement provided to the journal that he had received consulting fees from agribusiness interests to evaluate chinook survival in California.

But an email from an editor at the journal, sent after the Greenpeace complaint was filed, said Hilborn did not need to revise his financial disclosure because “it was common practice to acknowledge sources and conflicts of interest relating only to the topic of a specific paper, not to one’s research support at large.”