Over a Barrel: Corporate Corruption of Science and Its Effects on Workers and the Environment

Abstract

Although occupational and environmental diseases are often viewed as isolated and unique failures of science, the government, or industry to protect the best interest of the public, they are in fact an outcome of a pervasive system of corporate priority setting, decision making, and influence. This system produces disease because political, economic, regulatory and ideological norms prioritize values of wealth and profit over human health and environmental well-being. Science is a key part of this system; there is a substantial tradition of manipulation of evidence, data, and analysis, ultimately designed to maintain favorable conditions for industry at both material and ideological levels. This issue offers examples of how corporations influence science, shows the effects that influence has on environmental and occupational health, and provides evidence of a systemic problem.

Large Effects from Small Exposures. III. Endocrine Mechanisms Mediating Effects of Bisphenol A at Levels of Human Exposure

“…Most of the small number of studies funded by government agencies that report no significant effects of BPA used one model animal (the CD-SD rat) that after being subjected to selective breeding for over 1000 generations has become extremely insensitive to any estrogenic chemical or drug, thus revealing the importance of determining the appropriateness of the animal model being used by including a positive control, such as DES, in studies of the estrogenic effects of BPA (22,35). Endocrinologists are well aware of the issue of corporate bias in research, and this issue has recently received considerable attention in articles published in special issues of journals (45)(46)(47)(48)(49), in a letter we have published (44), as well as in a review in Scientific American (50).…”

Corporate practices and health: a framework and mechanisms

“…Corporations funded £250 million of university research in 2001 in the UK. In the US, private commercial funding grew from $264 million in 1980 to $2 billion in 2001 [19]. Naturally, corporate funding, per se, is not a problem but there is substantial empirical evidence that the independence of the research is compromised by it.…”

“…There is no requirement for these companies to disclose their funding when lobbying regulatory agencies or when expressing their views in other public fora. Science Institutes fulfil a similar role [19]. The Asbestos Information Association is a front group created by this industry to dismiss public and governmental concerns about their product.…”

Should we welcome food industry funding of public health research?

“…[8][9][10][11] Internal documents show how they manipulate evidence in their favour, strategically communicate that evidence to influence public and political opinion, and ultimately minimise regulation and legal liability. [8][9][10][11][12][13] The food industry is diverse, but there is a clear conflict between public health and companies that produce ultraprocessed food and sugary soft drinks. It is unsurprising, therefore, that similar evidence is now emerging for these companies.…”

“…8 13 Industry funds these studies, often by the top researchers in the top institutions, because it knows they are safe (that is, the results will not threaten industry interests), will divert attention to alternative risk factors, enhance industry reputation, and create a cadre of indebted experts. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] These scientists may be doing quality work but it does not advance science. Instead it puts industry in control of the research agenda.…”