Have you ever wondered why it is that substantial blocs of people refuse to believe certain things, even after they have been considered "proven" by the findings of science? Galileo, for instance, was put on trial in 1632 for teaching the heliocentric (sun-centered) doctrine 89 years after Copernicus convincingly first proposed it and 22 years after his own telescopic observations confirmed it. In the nineteenth century Joseph Lister had great difficulty securing acceptance of the principle of antiseptic surgery and the need for surgeons to wash and disinfect their hands and instruments. For much of the twentieth, many Americans clung to the unfounded view that women and African-Americans lagged behind white men in intelligence.
More recently we have seen how persistent has been popular opposition to a range of questions regarded as conclusively settled by the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community. Among these stand such precepts as biological evolution by natural selection, the futility of "abstinence only" sex education and the occurrence of global warming as a result of human activity. Regardless of the findings of research, millions seem steadfastly wedded to debunked ideas. Why is this so?
In this piece I'll link you to an excellent synopsis showing one facet of the reason, the existence of well-funded disinformation campaigns by special interests who stand to lose a great deal of money if the facts of science are heeded. In a future issue I'll explore other attitudinal and psychological reasons.
But today I'd like to introduce you to the "Manufactured Doubt Industry," a thriving subset of the public relations or advertising industry. Pioneered by the tobacco industry campaign directed by the firm Hill and Knowlton beginning in 1954, this very company went on to sow obfuscation and delay on behalf of cancer-causing asbestos and ozone-layer destroying chlorofluorocarbons. All succeeded in delaying the implementation of urgently needed protections by many years.
Then, beginning in 1988, the fossil fuel industry followed up the strategies developed by Hill and Knowlton in a now twenty-year-old campaign to pull the wool over gullible eyes in order to limit regulation of the effects their products are having on earth's climate and web of life. For an eye-opening insight, read the well-written and researched article "The Manufactured Doubt Industry and the Hacked Email Controversy" by Jeff Masters in "Common Dreams" here.
For a preview, the basic steps of disinformation used in "manufacturing doubt" are included in this article on the ozone hole issue. It has been called the standard package of tricks. It remains disappointing that the media too often fails to differentiate between the objectivity of legitimate peer-reviewed scientific publications on the one hand and reports by in-house shills and thinks tanks in the pay of industry such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project on the other. But now you know better.
No comments:
Post a Comment