"Junk science is agenda driven "
Smoke our tobacco, buy our oil...
Published: 26 March 2021
The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health
Rebecca F. Goldberg & Laura N. Vandenberg Environmental Health volume 20, Article number: 33 (2021) Cite this article
8399 Accesses
11 Citations
182 Altmetric
Metricsdetails
Abstract
Background
Numerous groups, such as the tobacco industry, have deliberately altered and misrepresented knowable facts and empirical evidence to promote an agenda, often for monetary benefit, with consequences for environmental and public health. Previous research has explored cases individually, but none have conducted an in-depth comparison between cases. The purpose of this study was to compile a comprehensive list of tactics used by disparate groups and provide a framework for identifying further instances of manufactured doubt.
Methods
We examined scholarly books, peer-reviewed articles, well-researched journalism pieces, and legal evidence related to five disparate industries and organizations selected for their destructive impacts on environmental and public health (tobacco, coal, and sugar industries, manufacturers of the pesticide Atrazine, and the Marshall Institute, an institute focused on climate change research, and other scientists from the era that associated with those in the Institute). These documents provided evidence for a list of tactics used to generate pro-industry spin and manufacture doubt about conferred harm. We then identified trends among sets of strategies that could explain their differential use or efficacy.
Results
We recognized 28 unique tactics used to manufacture doubt. Five of these tactics were used by all five organizations, suggesting that they are key features of manufactured doubt. The intended audience influences the strategy used to misinform, and logical fallacies contribute to their efficacy.
Conclusions
This list of tactics can be used by others to build a case that an industry or group is deliberately manipulating information associated with their actions or products. Improved scientific and rhetorical literacy could be used to render them less effective, depending on the audience targeted, and ultimately allow for the protection of both environmental health and public health more generally.
Background
The term ‘manufactured doubt’ refers to actions that deliberately alter and misrepresent knowable facts and empirical evidence to promote an agenda [ 1, 2, 3, 4], often to benefit a broader industry, specific corporation, or group of individuals [ 1, 5]. The doctored, or spun, version of facts associated with manufactured doubt closely resembles the truth but is not easily discernible as falsehood [ 6]. Like an invasive species, it proliferates faster than the truth, spreading unchecked and able to adapt to specific constraints. Countless parties have used a suite of techniques and strategies to obscure the harmful effects of their work. This type of deceit can result in confusion among audiences, thus delaying actions that threaten the group’s mission and giving parties undue influence in the very systems intended to regulate them.
There are multiple examples of organizations that have manufactured doubt, obscuring the scientific link between their work/actions and harmful effects. These include, but are not limited to, the NFL and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), manufacturers of the insecticide DDT and wildlife destruction, pharmaceutical companies and the addictive nature of opioids, and asbestos companies and mesothelioma [ 1, 4, 7, 8]. These groups successfully spun a narrative predicated on manipulated facts, thus delaying environmental or public health protective actions, while calling the scientific basis for concern into question.
In a recent review, we described the deceptive actions of five different industries or organizations, chosen for their unique and varied contributions to the list of methods used to manufacture doubt among diverse audiences with ultimate impacts on environmental or public health [ 9]. The first, Big Tobacco, is widely considered to have “written the playbook” on manufactured doubt [ 1]. The tobacco industry has managed to maintain its clientele for many decades in part due to manufactured scientific controversy about the health effects of active and secondhand smoking [ 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13].
The other industries we examined include the coal industry, whose employees often suffer from black lung disease [ 14], yet the industry has avoided awarding compensation to many affected miners by wielding disproportionate influence in the courtroom [ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]; the sugar industry, which distracted from its role contributing to metabolic and cardiovascular diseases [ 20] by deflecting blame toward dietary fat as a plausible alternative cause for rising population-level chronic disease rates [ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]; the agrochemical business, Syngenta, manufacturer of the herbicide atrazine [ 26, 27, 28], which conducted personal attacks against a vocal critic of atrazine whose research revealed disruptive effects on the endocrine systems of aquatic animals [ 29, 30]; and the Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank comprised of Cold War physicists eager to maintain their proximity to government, and associated scientists who deliberately misrepresented information to the government to both minimize and normalize the effects of fossil fuels on global temperatures [ 1, 4, 31].
continues
ehjournal.biomedcentral.com |
