Comprehensive coverage

How industry fights science

Does smoking harm health? Polluting coal-fired power plants? Does plastic poison the environment? Global warming because of human activity? The people of the industries that cause these damages do everything to make you doubt or even if you don't, their influence will be stronger than the scientific truth

US President Donald Trump downplays the importance of scientific findings regarding global warming in the event of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Screenshot from YOUTUBE
US President Donald Trump downplays the importance of scientific findings regarding global warming in the event of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Screenshot from YOUTUBE

Below are seven methods used by heads of industries to damage attempts to implement policies for public health and the environment as published In American Journal of Public Health

1 - Attacking the legitimacy and "kosher" of science

This attack is carried out by many means. Among other things, by accusing science of deception through nicknames such as "scum of science" "bad science"; Claim that science is about manipulation to fulfill a political agenda; - Attacking scientific institutions and government agencies acting contrary to the inerts of companies and corporations; A claim that science is unreliable, that scientists do not know all the reasons, and that more research is needed; Hiding information that does not match the corporate position; Using and spreading misleading information by selectively choosing irrelevant facts; Claiming that there are many causes for environmental or health problems and addressing only one cause will result in a minimal result; Challenging scientific information by exaggerating the uncertainty arising from any effort; Use of corporate funding to carry out research that will suit the needs of the funders.

2 - Attacking, intimidating and threatening scientists by creating doubt about the truth by attacking the credibility of the researcher; Attacking the credibility of the "messenger" on the grounds of ulterior motives; - Humiliating the enemy (shaming) by using offensive and insulting terms and developing fear and hatred; threats and filing lawsuits and causing delays in the hearing of the facts; using the rhetoric of repression; Infiltrating scientific groups for the purpose of monitoring scientists; repetition of doubts using exchange messages; Repeated use of concepts such as "over-regulation" or
Unnecessary regulation" and even "national health" are concepts that create fear and contempt. They also make a constant and recurring demand for more proof.
3 - Creating an organization that will be at the forefront:
The lobbyists of the polluting industry create front groups or front groups consisting mainly of lawyers who will run projects to "launder information" and use attorney-client privilege to avoid scrutiny. Support for conferences and the creation of "independent" journals that will not be auditable, as well as the distribution of written materials in social media and the use of public opinion polls.
4 - Presenting "balanced" conflicts and debates by creating the impression of divided opinions and a "real" debate while insisting that responsible journalists should cover both sides of the dispute; Another way is to divert attention from harmful products and focus on fulfilling corporate obligations; Establishing funds to finance social activities while diverting the focus from the problematic issue.

5 - Framing issues in creative ways by insisting on the complexity of the problem while implying that it is too early for a solution and that there is no simple solution (if any); insisting that technological progress will remove the need for regulation and that problems will be solved by market power; insisting on parental responsibility and that the government has no role in influencing individual behavior and health (such as smoking); Using colorful images and "sublime" concepts to convince; using fear as a tool to change policy; Reducing the seriousness of the problem by providing a basis for doubt. Alternatively, a confirmation that the problem is serious but not threatening, or - it is claimed that the problem is less serious than other problems that must be prioritized or alternatively that solving the problem is too expensive and that the benefit from the problem was not taken into account and that other options were not considered. Language has a lot of power, when the other party's language is full of ignorance, it is important to use clear language and concepts that express confidence.
6 - Funding of a publicity campaign that gives false information by the industry. This is done through a number of methods such as paying celebrities and participating sympathetic experts in surveys and conferences that will challenge scientific conventions, siding with groups and issues such as employment, discrimination and opposition to taxes.

7- Influence on the political agenda through donations to politicians and parties across the spectrum; Placing representatives from offending industries in committees and offices where policy is determined; Investing in lobbyists (lobbyists) who will obtain "friends" for the purpose of influencing government officials such as consultants, managers, etc. who will work alongside the corporations when they leave their public office; An activity to reduce the government budget for regulation and scientific research, as well as an activity that will neutralize opposition to the interests of the corporations,

There is no doubt that with relatively cheap means the polluting factories and those responsible for global warming succeeded in determining who will be the president of the United States. Solving the problems they created would have cost them much more. To be on the safe side, so that we know less about the intensity of the damage, one third of the EPA employees are fired and the rest are instructed to deal only with local infections.


One of the greatest parodies

15 תגובות

  1. Those who don't want to hear get a hurricane in the face... haha
    Friends, when will Pharaoh-Trump not harden his heart?

    How many hurricanes will hit and with what intensity?

  2. As I know, any research can have a bias depending on who commissioned it and that's how the industry also has interests. In the past they put it into their minds that cigarettes are healthy..

  3. The American president is the choice of Americans, and we cry over spilled milk overseas.
    And it is not certain that if Clinton had been elected our situation would have been better, under Clinton we might have already been under other (perhaps worse) sanctions.

  4. Okay, if it's a political site then... actually most of the tycoons support the globalist democrats and in general the left and socialism, why? Because then they preserve their monopolies and kill competition and raise tariffs and difficulties on parallel imports. In addition, they move factories abroad, produce cheaply abroad and sell produce at a huge profit. Plus they encourage illegal immigration so they can have cheap, disenfranchised workers. In addition, the left is also interested in a narrow layer of civil servants and tycoon cronies and all the rest are poor slaves without a main middle layer, meaning the left aims to abolish individual and property rights with the help of regulations, bureaucracy, big government and personal and political oppression. And this is just the pinch in the pinch in the exploits of the allies of the left

  5. Definately not.
    This American president is also harming us every day and every hour.
    He froze research - including medical research from the NIH and NSF to cut the budget and lower taxes for his tycoon friends. Cancer patients can wait.
    my father

  6. And in addition, the issue of the election of the American president is a bit big on us and there is no point in wasting resources in this direction.
    We have our own leaders who also deserve some criticism.

  7. And let it be clear:
    I do not claim that there is no global warming, and I do not claim that Trump and the deniers are right.
    On the other hand I claim
    Emphasis should be placed on what can be done in our small country regarding environmental pollution, and this is much more important and urgent than reducing CO2 emissions, which is a major global issue for us.
    Separate science and politics, the scientific truth should be investigated by science and not by politics, not to close the scientific truth in the framework of consensuses, to give legitimacy to all the opinions of scientists even outside the boxes, and to stop the attempts at brainwashing in both directions.

  8. I suggest checking what the lobbyists of these industries are doing in our country.
    It is much more relevant to us.
    The lobbyists of the farmers and the fertilizer and pesticide industries, who poison the environment with pesticides.
    The lobbyists of the refining and petrochemical industries.
    The lobbyists of the electric company
    And now the new and worst threat to the environment - the "natural" gas industries that are soon to fill all the coasts of Israel with their chimneys.

  9. True, but it also works the other way around
    Scientists and scientific institutions are also human beings and suffer from all these diseases
    When a certain clique of scientists has a consensus they do everything to silence other scientists.
    For example, one of many - what they did to Professor Dan Shechtman when he tried to come up with a new theory about the pentagonal crystal (the theory for which he eventually received a Nobel Prize)

  10. There seems to be a too direct translation in English.

    Secondly, there are zero examples here and instead a long long list of ways. In my opinion, it's hard to read like that (I did) and misses the point.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.