|
|
Money Buys Science: How Studies Are Bought and SkewedDishonor to the Royal Society, science's venerable institution, born in 1660, whose birthday is today.by Heidi Stevenson28 November 2009
The marketing of an image is all-important in the corporate world. Convincing people to shop in your store because it's green because of the carrier bags policy is worth how much? Tesco seems to think the value is £25 million—and a university was quite happy to take the money and provide the study to prove it. A few years ago, in an attempt to woo customers away from competitors, UK supermarket giant Tesco announced a policy of offering incentives to reuse shopping bags instead of charging for them. The incentives are "points" for using one's own bags, which translate to about a tiny fraction of one pence—and only for people who are Tesco Club members.
The entire business of science has become little more than that—a business in which money speaks and coerces.
Of course, it was a good idea to be able to show that this policy of choice, offering incentives instead of charging for carrier bags, actually works. So, Tesco gave £25 million to help set up the Sustainable Consumption Institute (SCI) of Manchester University.
The Study Doesn't Appear to Have Been a StudyTo great fanfare, SCI published a paper, "Consumers, business and climate change", lauding Tesco's carrier bag policy at the Royal Society, the science organization founded by giants like Christopher Wren and Isaac Newton. The report drew the conclusion that "offering incentives is more effective than threatening penalties". Tesco claims that its policy has resulted in a 50% drop in use of carrier bags. Here is the report's conclusion on Tesco's carrier bag policy: Tesco offered one 'green' loyalty point (worth about €0.012) for each bag not used. (The company also ensured that people had to ask for bags at the checkout rather than being given them automatically.*) the net result was a 50% reduction on plastic bag consumption in the UK. this has saved the need for three billion bags so far, or the equivalent to 35,000 tonnes of CO2e per year. This suggests that offering incentives is more effective than threatening penalties. *NOTE: I can personally attest that this is not true. Clerks ask if you have your own bags. The customer is alleviated of the need to ask.
Here's what the report doesn't say:
While some studies manipulate statistics, others, like SCI's, simply ignore what doesn't fit the message of the pockets that paid. That connection may not be direct, as in this case. SCI didn't accept money to do this study. They did, however, take £25 million from Tesco to set up business. As a result, they don't even see the need to do real research. It's very difficult to believe that the Tesco data came from any source other than Tesco.
In a rather unscientific note, I have watched, in dismay, how few of Tesco's customers at checkout stands actually provide their own carrier bags. The vast majority continue to use the ones provided for "free". I find it quite difficult to believe the 50% reduction claim. I suggest that you take a look at the report itself. It looks more like a marketing effort than a scientific study.
Attempts to Support the StudyThe Director General of SCI, Mohan Munasinghe, who is named as one of the three principal authors, initially lauded the report. After he'd been caught, he stated, "I accept the point that the conclusion has been somewhat overstated." This man is also the Chairman of his own Sri Lanka company, Munasinghe Institute for Development, which states in its own self-description: MIND is a private, nonprofit organization, established to play a key role in nurturing communities of scholars and practitioners who will address sustainable development issues worldwide and explore viable means of achieving this goal in Sri Lanka and elsewhere without compromising economic, environmental and socio-cultural integrity.Yeah. Right. Notice also that he shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. One must wonder what the real qualifications are. A Tesco spokesperson claims that the company had no influence on the report's preparation, saying: [The Institute's] research is independent. We share a common aim in sustainable consumption. Of course we are going to help them with the report and provide them with the assistance they ask for. Tesco actually got more than the claim that its practice of noncoercively inducing people to reuse carrier bags. The company received no fewer than 20 highly complimentary references in the report. The Royal Society's DisgraceThe formerly venerable Royal Society let this obvious junk science study be promoted under its banner as part of its 350th anniversary. Isaac Newton must be rolling in his grave. Yet, this presentation doesn't seem to be unique. A recent discussion meeting called "New vaccines for global health" was held on 22-23 November. October of 2010 will see "Direct control of cell phenotype for research and therapy". These are arenas in which Big Business has poured massive amounts of money. The titles themselves are indicative of the funding. There's a clear presumption that vaccinations are the key to global health, an assumption that has never even been tested; it's merely a presumption. The focus on cell phenotyping research is on how it can be used for profit. Science Is Little More Than A BusinessThe most distressing aspect of this study is that it's not unusual. The same sort of thing happens in any arena where there's money to be made. This particular instance is exceptionally sloppy—but far from unique. Big Tobacco became infamous for it. They bought the research they liked, covered up what they didn't like, and purchased doctors who praised their products. Big Pharma has been paying for drug research with obvious and disastrous results. Thousands, perhaps millions, have died and are dying because of flawed paid-for research. Rather than directly paying for a study, they give money to a school's department or foundation, as in this article's example. They provide the majority of so-called post-graduate education. The entire business of science has become little more than that—a business in which money speaks and coerces. Following the money trail is becoming more and more difficult as the industry grows more and more clever. They've been caught ghost writing the reports officially written by the so-called researchers. Studies that purportedly claim to prove no connection between autism and mercury systematically eliminate results that would prove the case. Close examination of many of pseudo-science studies shows that either information is missing or the results do not support the conclusions. Yet, the lick spittle media simply takes the Big Pharma-written press releases and publishes them as news.
References:
|
|
