The Union of Concerned Scientists have published a reference document entitled “
Heads They Win, Tails We Lose - How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense” at:
www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity
In it they list the ways corporations abuse the scientific and policy-making processes by:
1/ Corrupting the Science - Corporations that stand to lose from the results of independent scientific inquiry have gone to great lengths to manipulate and control science and scientists by:
a) Terminating and suppressing research. Companies have controlled the dissemination of scientific information by ending or withholding results of research that they sponsor that would threaten their bottom line.
b) Intimidating or coercing scientists. Corporations bury scientific information by harassing scientists and their institutions into silence. Scientists have been threatened with litigation and the loss of their jobs, have had their research de-funded, have been refused promotion or tenure, and have been transferred to non-research positions, leading to self-censorship and changes in research direction.
c) Manipulating study designs and research protocols. Corporations have employed flawed methodologies in testing and research—such as by changing the questions scientists are asking—that are biased toward predetermined results.
d) Ghostwriting scientific articles. Corporations corrupt the integrity of scientific journals by plant¬ing ghostwritten articles about their products. Rather than submitting articles directly, companies recruit scientists or contract with research organizations to publish articles that obscure the sponsors’ involvement.
e) Publication bias. Corporations selectively publish positive results while under-reporting negative results. While not directly corrupting science itself, these publishing and reporting biases skew the body of evidence.
2/ Shaping Public Perception
Armed with public relations teams, private interests have launched campaigns that influence public opinion and undermine understanding of scientific consensus. Among their methods:
a) Downplaying evidence and playing up false uncertainty. As scientific understanding of the health effects of products and substances such as tobacco and particulate emissions emerges, companies fight regulation by attacking the science, downplaying scientific consensus, exaggerating scientific uncertainty and spreading doubt.
b) Vilifying scientists. Scientists analyzing the health and environmental effects of products such as asbestos and lead, and phenomena such as climate change, are publicly criticized and attacked. These attacks and allegations of misconduct dis¬credit the scientists and deter them from continuing their research.
c) Promoting experts who undermine the scientific consensus. Corporations promote individuals who overemphasize research that appears to cast doubt on the scientific consensus. Often their expertise is not in a relevant field, limiting their ability to effectively evaluate the scientific findings they are criticizing.
d) Hiding behind front groups or “capturing” organizations. Companies use front groups, public relations firms, and other paid consultants to covertly advance corporate interests while these entities maintain the illusion of independence.
e) Influencing the media. Corporations inaccurately portray science by feeding the media slanted reports and news stories, or biased spokespeople.
3/ Restricting Agency Effectiveness - Companies engage in activities that undermine the ability of federal agencies to use independent science to regulate products. Companies also advocate for more layers of bureaucracy, and take advantage of inappropriate relationships with agency personnel, to hinder the development of policies that protect the public and the environment.
a) Attacking the science. Corporations have attacked the science used to inform federal policy making in an attempt to delay regulation.
b) Hindering the regulatory process. Corporations advocate for policies that limit the ability of agencies to use the best available science when making decisions. So-called “regulatory reforms” limit agencies’ resources, curb the roladopted flawed methodologies, put direct pressure on scientists and their supervisors to alter findings, and censored scientists to prevent them from speaking publicly or with the media.
c) Corrupting scientific advisory panels. Government agencies rely on independent scientific advisory panels to provide objective advice. But panel members often have undisclosed financial conflicts of interest: ties to companies that stand to win or lose based on the findings of these advisory committees.
d) Spinning the revolving door. Officials shuttle between high-level government positions and regulated industries or corporations. This revolving door can lead to regulatory capture: federal agencies charged with protecting the public can end up as shields or advocates for the regulated industries.
e) Censoring scientists and their research. Federal officials with industry ties have deleted selected evidence from scientific documents, knowingly adopted flawed methodologies, put direct pressure on scientists and their supervisors to alter findings, and censored scientists to prevent them from speaking publicly or with the media.
f) Withholding information from the public. Besides censoring scientists, federal officials acting on behalf of corporate interests have buried scientific findings, delayed the release of information, or otherwise suppressed or withheld scientific information.
5/ Influencing Government and Regulators
Election campaigns compromises the will of elected representatives to respond to the needs of the people they represent. Money and secrecy in lobbying, excessive campaign funding, and a revolving door on Parliament Hill give corporate interests unprecedented and undue access to members of the Cabinet. This influence encourages members to challenge scientific consensus, delay action on critical science-based problems, and shape the use of science in policy making. A recent marked increase in lobbying expenditures, along with greatly relaxed rules on corporate spending on elections, has exacerbated these pressures of science in decision making, or put an extraordinary burden of proof on agencies before they can act.
