|
Book Review by Sibylle Hechtel
It's not often you read a book that dramatically
changes your outlook or opinions. Most books amuse, entertain,
or inform. Trust
Us, We're Experts shocks. It easily could lead the uninitiated
to question their assumptions about "facts" and
"truth" in the marketplace.
PR was created
to manipulate public opinion.
Authors Rampton and Stauber of the Center
for Media and Democracy chronicle the history of public
relations, from Edward Bernays' laying the groundwork for
the fledgling industry in the 1920s to the power it wields
over public policy today.
According to the authors, Bernays, a disciple
of Sigmund Freud, "created more institutes, funds, institutions,
and foundations than Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Filene together."
In his book Propaganda, Bernays argued
that scientific manipulation
of public opinion is key. "A relatively small
number of persons," he wrote, " . . . pull the wires
which control the public mind."
Bernays believed that "somebody interested
in leading the crowd needs to appeal not to logic but to unconscious
motivation." Trust Us, We're Experts shows how the world's
richest and most powerful corporations do this.
"Third parties" set PR apart
from advertising. The authors describe how the tobacco industry
first hired movie stars to sell cigarettes and then spent
millions of dollars to counter findings that cigarettes cause
cancer, a strategy based on the so-called third-party technique
and on testimonials.
"'How can the persuader reach these
groups that make up the large public?' Bernays asked. . .
. 'He can do so through their leaders . . . . The group leader
thus becomes a key figure in the molding of public opinion.'"
The third-party
technique distinguishes PR from advertising.
"The best use of a PR firm will be
when the firm supplies useful information to influential reporters
and analysts who have large audiences." This strategy
camouflages the actual source of information, encourages
conformity to vested interests while pretending
to encourage independence, and replaces facts with emotion-laden
symbolism.
The GM food wars claimed a scientific
casualty. I was particularly appalled at the story of scientist
Arpad Pusztai. Pusztai identified troubling results in rats
fed genetically modified potatoes.
When he announced his findings, his bosses
at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, suspended
him (he soon retired) and discredited his research. Before
reading this account, I had believed the official version:
Pusztai did shoddy research.
But this book indicates that Pusztai's
work was fine - its only fault was that it went against major
commercial interests.
Another disturbing case involved psychologist
Claire Ernhart of Case Western Reserve University. Ernhart,
who received grants from the industry-funded International
Lead Zinc Research Organization, also serves as a courtroom
"expert witness."
A physician, Herbert Needleman, published
results showing that lead-exposed children are more hyperactive
and suffer more attention deficit. In 1981, Ernhart formally
accused Needleman of having conducted flawed research.
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
investigation found inconsequential statistical errors. The
world's largest PR firm, Hill and Knowlton, then sent a draft
copy of the EPA report to journalists together with a cover
letter claiming that the EPA panel had rejected Needleman's
findings.
PR tactic: Hire
an expert to discredit an expert. When the EPA
reversed its position and adopted Needleman's findings, Hill
and Knowlton continued to circulate the draft report. In 1991,
Ernhart wrote to the National Institutes of Health charging
Needleman with scientific misconduct.
In 1992 Needleman obtained an open hearing
to confront his accusers. Ernhart and another psychologist
claimed Needleman had manipulated variables to produce biased,
anti-lead results. Needleman's scientific defenders showed
that even without these variables, his results remained the
same: For every 10 parts per million increase of lead in a
child's baby tooth, there was a two-point drop in IQ.
The authors recount similar cases in which
millions of dollars were
paid to PR companies by corporations whose interests
ranged from the food and restaurant businesses to the oil
and chemical industries.
The issues involved industrial diseases
and work-related illnesses; safety and risk assessment; and
the impact of organochlorines such as DDT, PCBs, and dioxin,
chemicals that can disrupt hormone metabolism.
The government isn't guarding the public's
interest. Rampton and Stauber continue with a description
of the battle between environmentalists and the biotech food
industry.
They note that many of the world's largest
chemical corporations, such as Monsanto, Novartis, Hoechst,
Pharmacia, Dow Chemical, and DuPont, shifted their investments
from chemicals to food and pharmaceuticals.
The investigative journalists conclude
that "government regulators are not presently functioning
to safeguard the public's best interest." As an obvious
example of abuse, they cite the story of one regulator, a
former Monsanto attorney, who helped draft an FDA policy and
later left the FDA to return to work for Monsanto.
Trust Us, We're Experts also considers
the effect of big money on universities and scientific journals,
describing instances in which tobacco companies paid
13 scientists $156,000 to write letters to influential medical
journals.
Chapter 9 looks at the concept of "junk
science," a self-serving term coined by corporate attorneys,
lobbyists, PR firms, and industry-funded "think tanks"
to discredit scientific and medical studies that might threaten
corporate profits.
Paid scientific "spokesmodels"
question the "prevailing wisdom." In chapter 10,
the authors discuss another problem closely linked to industry:
global warming. They also address recent severe weather events,
such as the breaking off of three large icebergs from the
Antarctic ice shelf in May of 2000.
As an example of a corporate contribution
to the debate, the authors tell the story of a PR representative
of the American Petroleum Institute who outlined a plan to
recruit scientists without "a long history of visibility
and/or participation in the climate change debate."
They would have $5 million over two years,
including $600,000 to develop a cadre of 20 "respected
climate scientists" who were to "recruit . . . a
team of five independent scientists to participate in media
outreach.
These scientific spokesmodels would be
sent around to meet with science writers . . . thereby raising
questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific
wisdom.'"
At times, Rampton and Stauber can be naïve
or unrealistic. They bemoan the increasing dependence of science
on government funding and lament the loss of the "gentleman
scientist" of an earlier era. But when wealthy scientists
attempt research using their own money today, the science
community brands them amateurs and accords them little respect.
The authors also question scientific journals'
use of page charges: "Bear in mind that authors can pay
to have scientific findings published, even in some peer-reviewed
journals."
But most journals charge per page to
cover publication costs, and everybody pays the same amount.
Page charges stem from journals' financial needs, not from
a cynical willingness to profit from otherwise unpublishable
research.
Trust Us has made me more skeptical. Before
reading this book, I was an enthusiastic supporter of biotechnology
and genetically modified (GM) foods. Now I'm not so sure.
Last summer, I debated GM foods with a fervent opponent.
I argued that they could provide vitamin
A in rice for developing nations, and produce bananas that
could be used as vaccines for children in the third world.
I still find these goals desirable, but I'm now more skeptical.
I ascribed distrust of GM foods to ignorance
or technophobia. After reading this book, I fear that my enthusiastic
support resulted partly from ignorance - not
of the science, but of the politics.
This book, which is well researched and
includes 33 pages of footnotes and references, is an excellent
primer for readers not familiar with the manipulation of public
opinion. A major strength is its help in directing readers
to relevant information, and instruction on how to investigate
problems affecting local communities.
Sibylle Hechtel is a freelance writer
whose articles' topics include science and rock climbing.
BioMedNet
- http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/109/reviews/review Posted
August 31, 2001
| 