Let’s add this one to the discussion and debate about “Agenda-driven science.”
In an attempt to reduce litigation costs, Georgia-Pacific – “one of the world’s leading makers of tissue, pulp, packaging, building products and related chemicals” according to GP’s official website – launched a secret campaign to produce and publish counterfeit science designed to raise doubts about the dangers of asbestos. You can read the full story here.
According to The Union of Concerned Scientists: “beginning in 2005, Georgia-Pacific crafted and published counterfeit science — seeding the literature with articles intended to raise doubts about the dangers posed by asbestos. In so doing, the company created a life-threatening hazard by deceiving those who rely on science to understand the health risks of asbestos exposure.”
Again, you can read the full story here.
For whatever it’s worth:
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a national nonprofit organization founded 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who sought to use the power of science to address global problems and improve people’s lives.
Our Mission
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
Matthew, GP and the tobacco industry obviously had agendas. This is not a defense of Hanson et al. — it’s a red herring.
The topic of this discussion is agenda-driven science not by corporations, but by scientists who allegedly use methods and practices “outside of scientific norms” to promote their views on forest management. I hope we on this blog can, as Peery et al suggest, facilitate “increased discussion among conservation scientists [that] is needed to help understand how values can lead to biases and ensure that we as a community conduct objective research and stay true to findings in communications with the public.”
Steve: I don’t believe Hanson et al need any defense, so obviously my posting an article from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which exposes the fact that timber industry giant Georgia-Pacific knowingly published fake science on the safety of asbestos, is in no way an attempted defense.
However, if we’re going to have a discussion and debate about “Agenda-driven science” let’s have at it.
Also, if Peery et al really want to facilitate “increased discussion among conservation scientists” why has Peery refused to answer or respond to Andy Stahl’s basic inquiry?
The phrase “agenda-driven science” has become popular in conservative circles, where it’s used to delegitimize research into possible environmental or human health harms caused by large companies.*
It’s a shame that phrase has such political implications, because of course science can be affected by agendas of all sorts. I suspect Matthew is frustrated by how it’s always scientists who are trying to help protect innocent people getting smeared as “agenda-driven,” and is responding to that by pointing out that the polluters have their own science-skewing agenda. (If I’m misconstruing you, Matthew, please do correct me.)
So it’s unfortunate that Peery et al. used that particular phrase, if only because it lends gravitas to those parties who cynically use it to help rich, powerful people avoid responsibility for hurting others. And it also promotes the notion that the very best science is agenda-less, that having an agenda is an intrinsically a bad thing. Which I think is incredibly dangerous. Wanting to cure cancer is an agenda. So is protecting children or the elderly from harm.
As for whether Hanson et al. engaged in dishonest or bad-faith science, I don’t know nearly enough to say. But I would note that, of the six activities that Peery et al. list as falling outside of scientific norms, several — “using social media (rather than peer-reviewed journals) to conduct critical scientific reviews of studies that do not support the findings of their own work,” “selectively using data that support their agendas,” and arguably “making management recommendations beyond what is reasonably supported by scientific findings” — are fairly common in many areas of science.
Whether this is a good or bad, I don’t know. In a culture where scientists are expected to have social media presences and to communicate with the general public, “using social media to … conduct critical reviews” and “making management recommendations beyond….” is probably unavoidable. And in turn people should keep a critical eye on them and push back when necessary. There’s probably no hard-and-fast, right-or-wrong approach to this stuff — just an ongoing attempt to keep people honest and moving closer to the truth.
* Fun aside: when I Google the phrase, the top hit is a fake advocacy group called EPA Facts, an arm of the Environmental Policy Alliance, which is a project of the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which used to be the Center for Consumer Freedom, founded by a former Philip Morris lobbyist originally hired to fight against laws that prohibit smoking in restaurants.
Probably not coincidentally, GP was bought by Koch Industries in 2005. The due diligence process probably revealed this asbestos liability, so they “invested” in some “insurance.”
PW as to what you said “using social media (rather than peer-reviewed journals) to conduct critical scientific reviews of studies that do not support the findings of their own work,” “selectively using data that support their agendas,” and arguably “making management recommendations beyond what is reasonably supported by scientific findings” — are fairly common in many areas of science.
I agree with selective use and management recommendations being fairly common. I am not so sure that “using social media to conduct critical scientific reviews” is that common, but I am interested in your experiences.
Again, I think an open transparent process of review is better than peer-reviewed journals alone for many reasons. So I disagree with Peery et al. on that. If I were to put myself in their shoes, though, I would think that a specific place where everyone discusses it would be better than what they might feel are science “drive-bys”. Wouldn’t it be great if we had a topical location (besides here) where folks knew they could go to critique or respond? And if all were civil? You could look up a topic (say spotted owls or forest carbon) and all the papers would be listed with a place for discussion. Researchers could even have the content and civility of their discussion rated as part of their performance reviews!