La toma de posesión corporativa de la razón del `' y de la ciencia del `'
Por David Molinero | Los que dicen que favorecen ciencia y racionalidad pueden terminar encima de apoyar el contrario. La ciencia y la racionalidad conservan una fuerza muy significativa en el discusión público y están así digno de explotar por intereses adquiridos. El uso estratégico de la ciencia es una pieza bien usada del armoury de la industria de relaciones públicas. Es de hecho verdad decir que la fundación de la banda y las industrias de cabildeo fueron basadas en tentativas de pervertir racionalidad y ciencia en interés de intereses adquiridos. Los médicos muy más tempranos de la banda tales como sobrino Edward Bernays de Freud, eran peritos en esto. El uso de Bernays de la psicología famoso fue puesto al uso en promover el tabaquismo entre mujeres labrándolas las antorchas del `de la libertad' y asociándolas a la igualdad y a la liberación de las mujeres.
Bernays estaba entre el primer para hacer una profesión fuera de lo que él llamó el `manipulación consciente' e inteligente' de la creencia y del comportamiento del público. Los que el `manipula este mecanismo no visto' de la sociedad eran, él escribieron, un gobierno invisible del `que es la energía predominante verdadera de nuestro país.' 1
La industria de la banda todavía se basa hoy en la misma filosofía. La promoción de la ciencia-yo-ness del `' es un talismán omnipresente. Tiene dos principios cardinales. El primer cada vez más siguiente considerada la vuelta neoliberal de los últimos años 70 - es que donde la ciencia o la verdad minará intereses corporativos, la ciencia o la verdad debe ser cambiada. El segundo principio es disfrazar la fuente de la información cuando sea útil. Cuando un mensaje es probable ser descreído o ser tratado con escepticismo cuando está dicho abiertamente por una corporación o un político, las palabras debe ser puesto en la boca alguien más believable y al parecer disinterested. Ésta es la técnica famosa de los terceros y ha conducido a un swathe entero de los científicos que toman el dinero corporativo para promover ciencia amistosa corporativa.
Porque la ciencia sigue siendo tal recurso que es imprescindible para que los intereses de gran alcance intenten y coopten, mine, tuerza, influencie o compre la ciencia del `'. Esto es tan extenso ahora que la edición está discutida abiertamente en los diarios científicos y hay un número pequeño pero creciente de examinar de los estudios la cuestión del diagonal potencial introducido por el financiamiento corporativo.2 From the 50 year battle to protect the tobacco industry to today’s strategic use of science in climate change denial, and to muddy the waters as obesity and binge drinking become crisis issues, scientists have been recruited as a resource. For example they receive research grants, are paid as consultants or have their names added to academic journal articles ghost written by PR operatives. Some scientists are even kept on retainers by corporations or lobby groups and can be wheeled out to order.
The third party technique fits nicely into the co-option strategy. Scientists whose research budgets are nicely swelled by corporate money can often be surprisingly willing recruits to speak on behalf of industry. A study of toxic industrial contaminants in farmed Salmon published in Science in 2004, was greeted with a chorus of condemnation in the press. Many of the voices were described as academic scientists. In fact almost all had financial links to the industry undisclosed in the press. The study itself was well grounded.3 Nonetheless the industry campaign to remove the stain of poisoned Salmon from the public mind was largely successful.
In the US and UK the creation of ‘front groups’ is common. These are organisations usually including a science-like term in their title such as ‘foundation’ ‘institute’ or ‘research’. In the UK the food industry has been able to sabotage healthy eating initiatives since the 1970s by – among other things - funding the apparently independent British Nutrition Foundation which is able to place representatives on a myriad of government committees.4 The International Life Science Institute sounds a bit scientific. In fact it is a food industry lobby group funded by hundreds of the biggest food, pharma and chemical companies and was for years more or less directed by the Coca Cola company. It was able to infiltrate the WHO process on dietary sugars by covertly funding some of the scientists involved.5 In January 2006 the WHO decided that ILSI ‘can no longer take part in WHO activities setting microbiological or chemical standards for food and water’, as a result of complaints about its lobbying tactics.6
The PR industry is at the forefront of creating and managing front groups today. The Scientific Alliance turned out to be run from the offices of Foresight Communications a PR firm in central London and to be funded by Scottish quarry owner Robert Durward. The Social Issues Research Centre ‘fosters the image of an ultraconcerned public spirited group’ and of ‘a heavy-weight research body’.7 It is also run by a PR/marketing company from the same address. That company - MCM Research - used to announce on its website its approach to open and truthful communications: ‘Do your PR initiatives sometimes look too much like PR initiatives? MCM conducts social/psychological research on the positive aspects of your business… The results do not read like PR literature’.8
Of course the corporations can do little else than lie and attempt to co-opt science. They require to extract maximum surplus from both labour and natural resources to be part of the global market. Their problem is that these qualities of corporate operations are not very attractive to the overwhelming majority of the population of the globe. As a result corporations and their PR agents must try to undermine or co-opt science. The only defence is transparency, enhanced ethics standards and public funding of research.
NOTES
1. Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, New York: Horace Liverwright.
2. Kassirer, J.P. On the take: How medicine’s complicity with big business can endanger your health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 2005.; Lesser et al. ‘Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles’. PLoS Medicine 2007.; Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 2006;333:782-5.;Veronica Yank, Drummond Rennie, Lisa A Bero, Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study BMJ 2007;335:1202-1205 (8 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE (published 16 November 2007); Jim Giles, Industry money skews drug overviews Nature 437, 458-459 (22 September 2005); DeAngelis, C. Comment on “Conflict of interest in medical research: facts and friction” in meeting proceedings, call to action: Managing financial relationships between academia and industry in biomedical research 2007; 15-16.;Peppercorn, J, Blood, E., Winer, E, Partridge, A. Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2005.
3. David Miller ‘Spinning Farmed Salmon (part 2 of 3)’, Spinwatch, 28 May 2008 http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4953/8/
4. Geoffrey Cannon The Politics of Food Century Hutchinson, London, UK, 1987. John Yudkin, Pure, White and Deadly, Penguin, 1988.
5. Sarah Boseley ‘WHO “infiltrated by food industry”‘ The Guardian Thursday January 9, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/09/foodanddrink; Sarah Boseley ‘Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO’ The Guardian Monday April 21, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food; Sarah Boseley ‘WHO ‘buried’ report to please food industry’ The Guardian Wednesday November 3, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/nov/03/media.advertising
6. John Heilperin, ‘WHO to Rely Less on U.S. Research’, Associated Press, January 27, 2006.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/27/national/w150409S47.DTL
7. Annabel Ferriman ‘An end to health scares?’ BMJ 1999;319:716- ( 11 September ) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7211/716
8. Ibid.
A shorter version of this article was published in the New Scientist (subscription required) on 23 July 2008.
Have Your Say: The corporate takeover of ‘reason’ and ‘science’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report here.
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 10th, 2008 at 9:46 pm and is filed under Contributions & Guests . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Translations
Loading ...Related News
- Could a germ spraying program be back in operation?
- Science is being distorted to promote political and corporate agendas
- VIDEO: Insanely Corrupt - “Mercury is good for you!”
- Food additives ‘can cause hyperactivity’
- Big Business Is Even More Unpopular Than You Think
Email This Page To A Friend
Latest Headlines
- The corporate takeover of ‘reason’ and ‘science’
- Could Coca Cola Distribution Network Save Children’s Lives?
- Iraq demands ‘clear timeline’ for US withdrawal
- Why the Drug War is a Crime against Humanity Explained
- Tape: Top CIA official confesses order to forge Iraq-9/11 letter came on White House stationery
- State and Local Prosecutors Can Take Down Bush
- HOO U GONNA COAL?
- New Book Reveals What You Aren’t Supposed To Know
- F.B.I. Says It Obtained Reporters’ Phone Records
- Class War Reply To The New Statesman
More Breaking News
Archive
