Confronting Pseudoscience and Threats from a Corporate Front

Group:The American Council on Science

and Health

Martin Donohoe

Outline

• Corporate Front Groups

• American Council on Science and Health

• Corporate PR Tactics

• Conclusions

Corporate Front Groups

• Promote corporate agendas• Strong financial and advisory links with

corporations• Disseminate misinformation/lies under

guise of “science”– Non-peer reviewed, cherry-picked/out of

context

• Promote pro-business, conservative ideology

Background

• Essay describing health and environmental consequences of global warming for Medscape

• Described ACSH as a corporate front group and criticized its selection of author Michael Crichton as recipient of its 2005 Sound Science Medal– Crichton’s State of Fear questions existence

of human-caused global warming

ACSH and Global Warming

• Leader referred to “belief” that burning fossil fuels has caused global warming as pseudoscience

• Criticized environmental scientists as “doomsayers” and “fearmongers”

ACSH Response

• Threatened litigation against Medscape

• Article pulled, then republished with additional material

• ?Loss of potential readership?

Dr Elizabeth Whelan

• Co-founder of ACSH

• Early writing career:– Freelance writing assignment for Pfizer

criticizing the FDA– Articles for Harper’s Bazaar and Glamour

(fashion magazines)– Books: Panic in the Pantry and Toxic Terror

ACSH:

Dr Gilbert Ross - Medical /Executive Director • Spent 1996 in federal prison after being

sentenced to 46 months for– Medicaid fraud– Perjury– Obstruction of justice

• Barred by the DHHS for 10 years from participating in either Medicare or Medicaid

• Not mentioned on his bio on ACSH website

ACSH:Dr Gilbert Ross’ Career

• Defended Wood Preservative Science Council against health claims regarding arsenic in pressure-treated wood

• Wrote on behalf of the farmed salmon industry that PCBs in fish do not cause any health problems

ACSH

• Annual turnover of under $2 million• Initial funding from right wing foundations,

corporations• Accepted money to write and disseminate

pro-industry “studies• Now: ?1/3 of funds from private

foundations, 1/3 from individuals, 1/3 from corporations?– Finances secret since early 1990s

ACSHSound Science

• Has spoken out re dangers of tobacco smoking

• Supported IOM recommendation re coverage of contraception as a preventive health service

• Criticized Oprah for pseudoscientific claims (“The Secret,” anti-vaccination promulgations, nutritional supplement promotions, etc.)

ACSH:Pseudoscience and Misinformation

• Attacked the precautionary principle

–“anti-science and anti-technology phobia”

–“fundamentally reactionary and elitist”

–“more on the order of theology [than science]”

ACSH:Pseudoscience and Misinformation

• Minimized the effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) on human health

–38,000 deaths/yr in U.S.

• Opposed FDA regulation of e-cigarettes

ACSH:Pseudoscience and Misinformation

• Promoted smokeless tobacco, snus, and e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids

• Opposed graphic tobacco package warnings

ACSH:Pseudoscience and Misinformation• Denied many of the adverse

neurological effects of lead exposure• Denied endocrine-disrupting effects

of PCBs• Claimed court ordered-cleanup of

Hudson River by GE based on false claims of PCBs causing cancer

ACSH:Pseudoscience and Misinformation• Minimized health concerns of 9-11

responders

• Opposed EPA attempts to strengthen clean air standards

• Opposed TSCA reforms

• Denied health risks of certain cosmetics

ACSH:Pseudoscience and Misinformation• Claimed uncertainty regarding effects of

agricultural antibiotics

• Denied health and environmental risks of GM crops

• Turned Alar concerns into manufactured “cautionary tale” of overzealous regulators run amok

ACSH:Pseudoscience and Misinformation• Criticized health concerns re trans fatty

acids– “There is no such thing as junk food”– “There is insufficient evidence of a

relationship between diet and any disease.” • Rejected AAP recommendation for fast food

television advertising ban• Opposed ban on sales of energy drinks to

minors

ACSH:Pseudoscience and Misinformation

• Claimed “irradiated food is safe, wholesome and nutritious” and “no radioactive isotopes are involved”

• Promoted nuclear power and benefits of low dose radiation hormesis

ACSH:Pseudoscience and Misinformation• Denied link between dioxins and

pesticides and adverse health effects– “Pesticides are not toxic to humans of any

age”

• Supported use of human volunteers in pesticide toxicity studies

• Denied health consequences of PBDEs (fire retardants) and PFOA (Teflon)

“Phony Health Scares”

• Mercury in tuna and other fish

–“Enjoy it without worry”

• Diesel exhaust fumes from school busses

• Arsenic in drinking water• Phthalates in medical devices and

children’s toys

ACSH: Attacks on Scientists and the Scientific Enterprise

• Threat of litigation against Medscape antithetical to the rules of science

–require the free exchange of information and opinion in pursuit of the truth

ACSH: Attacks on Scientists and the Scientific Enterprise

• ad hominem attacks

– environmentalists = “toxic terrorists”

– Whelan criticized Dr. Barry Levy and citizen-activist Erin Brockovich as “individuals who…pursued self-serving financial opportunities through litigation”

– Called HSPH a “hotbed of pseudoscience and political agitation”

Implications of Attacks on Science and Scientists

• ACSH has broad media presence

–Most major networks, newspapers

• Web site popular

Implications of Attacks on Science and Scientists

• Mislead public / may cause alterations in lifestyle and/or purchasing habits– adverse consequences to health

• Threats of litigation and SLAPP suits distract, intimidate, and deplete the scientific, legal, and financial resources of individuals and groups committed to public health

Implications of Attacks on Science and Scientists

• Faulty pronouncements influence elected officials

• Threats of litigation divert the valuable time of health care providers, editors, and legal departments away from their more productive missions of research, teaching, writing, and patient care

Implications of Attacks on Science and Scientists

• Scientists and health care advocates may decide it is wiser to avoid conflict than publish content to which ACSH and other such groups might object

Educational Deficits Impede Public’s Understanding of Science

• Inadequate funding of science and health education means individuals may lack background necessary to recognize sound science vs. ideological bunk

Corporate Influence

• Greenwash: Public relations/ad campaigns

• Astroturf: artificially-created grassroots coalitions

Corporate PR tactics

• Invoke poor people as beneficiaries

• Characterize opposition as “technophobic,” anti-science,” “anti-business,” and “against progress”

• Portray their products as environmentally beneficial in the absence of (or despite the) evidence

Sponsored Environmental Educational Materials

• Corporate-sponsored and supported by a loose coalition of antiregulatory zealots, corporate polluters, lapdog scientists and misguided parents

Sponsored Environmental Educational Materials - Examples

• Exxon’s “Energy Cube”

-“Gasoline is simply solar power hidden in decayed matter”

-“Offshore drilling creates reefs for fish”

• Pacific Lumber Company

-“The Great American Forest is. . . renewable forever”

Sponsored Environmental Educational Materials - Examples

• American Nuclear Society’s “Activities with the Atoms Family”

• Dow’s “Chemipalooza”

Conclusions

• Professional and lay publications should expose the workings of groups like ACSH

• Scientists should fight back against harassment

• Improve quality of public education; get corporations out of the classroom

Martin T Donohoehttp://www.publichealthandsocialjustice.org

http://www.phsj.orgmartindonohoe@phsj.org