Quebrando a notícia | Forum | Notícia BRITÂNICA | Notícia dos EUA | Notícia do mundo | Notícia política | Notícia do Sci-Tech | Notícia da guerra & do terrorismo | Notícia dos esportes | Multimedia | Ajuste o homepage

Domingo, agosto 10o, 2008

Por David Moleiro | Aqueles que dizem que favorecem a ciência e o rationality podem terminar acima de suportar o oposto.  A ciência e o rationality retêm uma força muito significativa no debate público e são assim worth explorar por interesses investidos.  O uso estratégico da ciência é uma peça bem usada do armoury da indústria de relações públicas.  Certamente é verdadeiro dizer que fundar do fotorreceptor e as indústrias lobbying estiveram baseadas em tentativas de pervertir o rationality e a ciência nos interesses de interesses investidos.  Os practitioners muito os mais adiantados do fotorreceptor tais como o nephew Edward Bernays de Freud, eram peritos neste.  O uso de Bernays do psychology foi posto famosa ao uso em promover fumar de cigarro entre mulheres denominando as tochas do `da liberdade' e associando as com a igualdade e o liberation das mulheres. 

Bernays era amongst o primeiro para fazer uma profissão fora de o que se chamou o `manipulação conscious' e inteligente' da opinião e do comportamento do público. Aqueles que o `manipula este mecanismo despercebido' da sociedade eram, ele escreveram, um governo invisível do `que fosse o poder governando verdadeiro de nosso país.' ¹

A indústria do fotorreceptor é baseada hoje ainda na mesma filosofia.  O promotion da ciência-eu-ness do `' é um talisman sempre atual.  Tem dois princípios cardinais. O primeiro - cada vez mais seguinte visto a volta neoliberal dos 1970s atrasados - é que onde a ciência ou a verdade undermine interesses incorporados, a ciência ou a verdade deve ser mudado.  O segundo princípio é disfarçar a fonte da informação onde útil. Quando uma mensagem é provável ser descrido ou tratado com o scepticism quando dito abertamente por um corporaçõ ou por um político, as palavras deve ser posto na boca de alguém mais believable e aparentemente disinterested.  Esta é a técnica famosa do terceiro partido e conduziu a um swathe inteiro dos cientistas que fazem exame do dinheiro incorporado para promover a ciência amigável incorporada.

Porque a ciência é ainda tal recurso que é imperativo para que os interesses poderosos tentem e co-opt, undermine, distorça, influencie ou compre a ciência do `'.  Isto é agora assim difundido que a edição está debatida abertamente nos jornais científicos e há um número pequeno mas de crescimento de examinar dos estudos  a pergunta da polarização potencial introduzida financiar incorporado.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.

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

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.

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Afghanistan Alternative-Energy Art BBC Big-Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush Censorship CIA Climate-Change Cover-Up Cults Culture Database-State David-Hicks David-Ray-Griffin Democrats Demos Drugs Education Entertainment Environmental News EU False-Flag FBI Fraud Free-Speech Freemasons G8 Globalization Guantanamo Health-News History ID-Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel Law Marches MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police-State Propaganda RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Science & Technology News Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spying Stephen-Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony-Blair Torture TV UK-News UN USA- USA-News Video Voting war Warfare White-House Wolfowitz World-News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version