TRUST US, WE'RE EXPERTS!: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Futures. - Review - book review

TRUST US, WERE EXPERTS!: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Futures

by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

J. P. Tarcher, $24.95

In 1935, As CONGRESS BEGAN Investigating lung disease among workers digging silica at Hawk's Nest, W. Va., an organization known as the Air Hygiene Foundation emerged to question the disease's severity, suggesting that quack doctors who diagnosed workers with the disease deprived them of their only livelihood.

AHF's campaign, described by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in Trust Us, We're Experts! How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With }3ur Future, succeeded on two levels. First, it downplayed silicosis so well that it has been until recently regarded as a disease of the past (even though the National Institute for National Safety and Health estimates that 100,000 workers are still at risk).

Secondly, since AHF appeared to be independent and scholarly but was actually funded by industry, it paved the way for what public relations professionals today call the third-party technique--funding a seemingly independent expert or nonprofit organization to dispute findings that may harm an industry.

Working from news reports, interviews, PR industry promotional materials, and many leaked internal documents, this follow-up to 1995's Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry includes countless examples of the third-party technique influencing (distorting) debate on public issues ranging from bankruptcy reform and the Microsoft anti-trust case to the potential dangers of genetically modified foods.

But Potemkin nonprofits are only one problem. There's plenty of other biased and distorted information out there: The book includes tales of questionable scientific rebuttals and legitimate university scientists having to tailor--or bury--research to suit the ends of their corporate sponsors. Opposing a global warming treaty, Sen. Chuck Nagel (R-Neb.) cites the Oregon Petition, supposedly signed by 15,000 scientists skeptical of global warning's severity. To demonstrate how easily names could be added to the list, environmental activists added Dr. Red Wine, John Grisham, and Spice Gift Geri Halliwell.

Rampton and Stauber pay close attention to the interplay of media, corporations, the public, and to a lesser degree, the government. But since they write more to expose than to argue, they sometimes get a little too wrapped up in the tales they're exposing. The middle third of the book, for example, examines the ways in which corporations analyze risk, but would have benefited from a summary of conclusions.

On the whole, as the authors consider the ways in which PR maneuvering hinders a genuine discussion of problems like global warming, the reader gets a good summary of contemporary environmental problems, and a few themes emerge.

They support the precautionary principle, which' advocates using safety measures when a new product or drug may plausibly pose serious risks that haven't been definitely determined. Accountability is crucial. Journalists have a responsibility to thoroughly investigate the sources of information and perspectives they write about; scientists should disclose conflicts of interest--financial connections in particular--when commenting on matters critical to industry.

Government alone will not always solve these problems: "With respect to the planting of genetically modified crops, the U.S. government has done just about everything except help drive the tractor," Rampton and Stauber write. Some Clinton environmental and trade appointees left to serve on Monsantos board; they in turn were replaced by executives from Monsanto and other companies. Elsewhere, some government technology experts are like the Sorcerer's Apprentice: "They are enchanted with the possibilities of this power, but often lack the wisdom necessary to perceive its dangers."

What about the "good guy" nonprofits, those that aren't fronts for industry? When Rampton and Stauber write about the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which monitors fat and sugar content in food, the authors seem to admire the organization's media savviness, even sharing a snappy sound bite--fettuccine Alfredo is "a heart attack on a plate." Elsewhere they acknowledge that some environmentalists use the same scare tactics as industry, and that some public interest groups can cook statistics as well as industry. They chalk this up to "the constraints and visual nature of television." But they rule neither on whether the white hats should aim for higher standards, nor on whether these tactics are acceptable when used for ends nobler than protecting market capitalization.

The final chapter, which calls for greater citizen participation in public policy issues, seems to explain why. Here, the authors list tips for seeing through corporate-funded think tanks and questions one might ask a local university professor about the integrity of a corporation's scientific study. They support the "citizens' juries" some nonprofits create by convening a panel of average citizens to hear testimony from experts and pass judgment on public policy issues. They call activism "a path to enlightenment" that" brings us into personal contact with other people who are informed, passionate, and altruistic in their commitment to help make the world a better place"