[New Yorker] Science and Objectivity in the Corporatocracy Era

rhadamanthus · Feb 10, 2014

Fascinating/amusing/depressing article on one scientist's battle against a corporate juggernaut.

It's a long read so I expect a number of "TLDR" posts from those folks who lack a developed attention span. Still, for those who enjoy a good read it's worth it. Excerpts:

Liu and several other former students said that they had remained skeptical of Hayes’s accusations until last summer, when an article appeared in Environmental Health News that drew on Syngenta’s internal records. Hundreds of Syngenta’s memos, notes, and e-mails have been unsealed following the settlement, in 2012, of two class-action suits brought by twenty-three Midwestern cities and towns that accused Syngenta of “concealing atrazine’s true dangerous nature” and contaminating their drinking water. Stephen Tillery, the lawyer who argued the cases, said, “Tyrone’s work gave us the scientific basis for the lawsuit.”

Hayes has devoted the past fifteen years to studying atrazine, and during that time scientists around the world have expanded on his findings, suggesting that the herbicide is associated with birth defects in humans as well as in animals. The company documents show that, while Hayes was studying atrazine, Syngenta was studying him, as he had long suspected. Syngenta’s public-relations team had drafted a list of four goals. The first was “discredit Hayes.” In a spiral-bound notebook, Syngenta’s communications manager, Sherry Ford, who referred to Hayes by his initials, wrote that the company could “prevent citing of TH data by revealing him as noncredible.” He was a frequent topic of conversation at company meetings. Syngenta looked for ways to “exploit Hayes’ faults/problems.” “If TH involved in scandal, enviros will drop him,” Ford wrote. She observed that Hayes “grew up in world (S.C.) that wouldn’t accept him,” “needs adulation,” “doesn’t sleep,” was “scarred for life.” She wrote, “What’s motivating Hayes?—basic question.”
Click to expand...

According to company e-mails, Syngenta was distressed by Hayes’s work. Its public-relations team compiled a database of more than a hundred “supportive third party stakeholders,” including twenty-five professors, who could defend atrazine or act as “spokespeople on Hayes.” The P.R. team suggested that the company “purchase ‘Tyrone Hayes’ as a search word on the internet, so that any time someone searches for Tyrone’s material, the first thing they see is our material.” The proposal was later expanded to include the phrases “amphibian hayes,” “atrazine frogs,” and “frog feminization.” (Searching online for “Tyrone Hayes” now brings up an advertisement that says, “Tyrone Hayes Not Credible.”)
Click to expand...

Fussy critiques of scientific experiments have become integral to what is known as the “sound science” campaign, an effort by interest groups and industries to slow the pace of regulation. David Michaels, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, wrote, in his book “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008), that corporations have developed sophisticated strategies for “manufacturing and magnifying uncertainty.” In the eighties and nineties, the tobacco industry fended off regulations by drawing attention to questions about the science of secondhand smoke. Many companies have adopted this tactic. “Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy,” Michaels wrote. “In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable.”

In the summer of 2002, two scientists from the E.P.A. visited Hayes’s lab and reviewed his atrazine data. Thomas Steeger, one of the scientists, told Hayes, “Your research can potentially affect the balance of risk versus benefit for one of the most controversial pesticides in the U.S.” But an organization called the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness petitioned the E.P.A. to ignore Hayes’s findings. “Hayes has killed and continues to kill thousands of frogs in unvalidated tests that have no proven value,” the petition said. The center argued that Hayes’s studies violated the Data Quality Act, passed in 2000, which requires that regulatory decisions rely on studies that meet high standards for “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity.” The center is run by an industry lobbyist and consultant for Syngenta, Jim Tozzi, who proposed the language of the Data Quality Act to the congresswoman who sponsored it.
Click to expand...

rocketsjudoka · Feb 10, 2014

Very interesting article and you see a lot of this type of stuff in the debates involving global warming, GMO, fracking or almost any issue where there is a lot of money at stake.

SwoLy-D · Feb 10, 2014

In before Liu Only Fans and Liu Only Haters derail the thread.

glynch · Feb 10, 2014

Excellent article. A stinging indictment of much "science" funded by for profit corporations.

dmc89 · Feb 10, 2014

Great article. It's sad seeing the little discussion it's generated. This is a basketball BBS, but one always hopes.

I have had extensive experience (through my career and friends/families) in dealing with public relations, search engine optimization, in-house counsel, university research grants, Congressional lobbying, and PSYOPS. Too few Americans are familiar with the above; few appreciate the use of disinformation/misinformation, and how it's executed in our modern world of a consolidated infotainment-complex. Those who speak on it are written off as conspiracy loons.

Observe the D&D. No one agrees on the facts. Topics like anthropogenic climate change, income/wealth distribution, income tax policies, and firearm regulations are some examples. One side lives in a parallel reality created by powerful, monied interests. Google searches and Wikipedia say one thing, some blogs and Twitter say another, etc. By creating an ocean of information, it's easy to overwhelm the common man seeking clarity with limited time and passion for the subject.

Tragically, a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when we all become too cynical. When the public loses faith in civil, intelligent discussions, it turns away from these issues. It focuses on making a living, keeping its head down, and hoping for the best. Our departure from debate and the civic process gives more power and legitimacy to the special interests (and their ignorant/willing supporters).

Rocket River · Feb 10, 2014

dmc89 said: ↑

Great article. It's sad seeing the little discussion it's generated. This is a basketball BBS, but one always hopes.

I have had extensive experience (through my career and friends/families) in dealing with public relations, search engine optimization, in-house counsel, university research grants, Congressional lobbying, and PSYOPS. Too few Americans are familiar with the above; few appreciate the use of disinformation/misinformation, and how it's executed in our modern world of a consolidated infotainment-complex. Those who speak on it are written off as conspiracy loons.

Observe the D&D. No one agrees on the facts. Topics like anthropogenic climate change, income/wealth distribution, income tax policies, and firearm regulations are some examples. One side lives in a parallel reality created by powerful, monied interests. Google searches and Wikipedia say one thing, some blogs and Twitter say another, etc. By creating an ocean of information, it's easy to overwhelm the common man seeking clarity with limited time and passion for the subject.

Tragically, a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when we all become too cynical. When the public loses faith in civil, intelligent discussions, it turns away from these issues. It focuses on making a living, keeping its head down, and hoping for the best. Our departure from debate and the civic process gives more power and legitimacy to the special interests (and their ignorant/willing supporters).
Click to expand...

When you cannot agree on the baseline facts
hard to get to an agreement of truth

Rocket River

rimbaud · Feb 11, 2014

The article did a nice job building up the fight and laying a little background but then at the end kind of teetered off and seemed to distance itself from Haye's positions (ending an article about the dangers of believing in an ambiguous manner). Really none of this should be surprising but I wish a little ore had been developed about the internal memos and what they actually indicated.

I liked the one guy's performance review that listed "influencing the EPA" in his job description. Sounds like fun!

Forums

[New Yorker] Science and Objectivity in the Corporatocracy Era

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

SwoLy-D Contributing Member

glynch Contributing Member

dmc89 Member

Rocket River Member

rimbaud Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

[New Yorker] Science and Objectivity in the Corporatocracy Era

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member Supporting Member

SwoLy-D Contributing Member

glynch Contributing Member

dmc89 Member

Rocket River Member

rimbaud Contributing Member Supporting Member

Share This Page

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

rimbaud Contributing Member
Supporting Member