« US Patent Office tries open peer review | Main | Peer review for academic blogs »

Bookmark in Connotea

Shaping the message, distorting the science

Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science - Center for Media and Democracy

Sheldon Rampton, Research Director of the Center for Media and Democracy, is testifying today (28 March) before the US House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology in a hearing entitled "Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science: Media Strategies to Influence Science Policy." Mr Rampton's written testimony is available here, and a webcast of the hearing is available here. Mr Rampton discusses the reliability of scientific knowledge, and the way in which it has been, and is, used as a tool to manipulate public opinion. He provides some examples of cases in which industries (such as the tobacco and petroleum industries) have undermined the journal peer-review process, and concludes:

"The manipulation of science for public relations or political advantage inevitably has a corrupting effect on science itself. It undermines the integrity and objectivity of scientific research. It creates confusion in the minds of policymakers and the general public. What is needed, therefore, is greater public transparency regarding the sponsorship of science and of organizations that claim to speak on scientific matters. The public and policymakers have a right and to know who is funding research, what strings are attached to that funding, and how it may be affecting the information we use to make decisions—especially decisions on policy matters that affect us all."

Rampton has authored numerous articles, commentaries and books (with John Stauber) on the subject of this testimony ,including Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future ; and Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry.

See here for the website of "Shaping the message, distorting the science": US House of Representatives.

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the blog editors before being published, mainly to ensure that spam and irrelevant material (such as product advertisements) are not published . Please keep your comment brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited. Remember this blog is for feedback and discussion of matters concerning scientific authorship or peer-review - not for drawing attention to your research.

If you want to know if a NPG journal would be interested in your research, you will need to contact the journal's editorial office, which can be done via the authors & referees website.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. E-mail addresses are required in case we need to discuss your comment with you directly. We won't publish your e-mail address unless you request it.

Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to avoid spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can send your comment by e-mail to 'referees at nature.com'.

please enter code