Abstract
BACKGROUNDHistorical and emerging evidence indicates that corporations, including those within the tobacco, pharmaceutical, and agrichemical industries, have used science as a tool to hide the harms of their products, prioritising profit over wellbeing of consumers and workers. With industry funding of science growing, important routes of inquiry include whether corporations in different industries seek to influence science in similar ways and for similar reasons; how widespread and well-understood corporate influence on science may be; and what interventions may be needed to ensure science is in the public interest. The aim of this thesis was to develop a greater understanding of historical and contemporary corporate influence on science by exploring its key features and effects, and identifying possible solutions.
METHODS
My thesis represents a multi-disciplinary, multi-method contribution to critical social science. First, I used scoping review methods and interpretive synthesis to synthesise the wide-ranging literature on corporate influence on science. Through this process I developed an evidence-based typology and model of corporate influence on science and the use of science in policy and practice – the Science for Profit Model (SPM) (Paper I). Second, from September 2017 until September 2021 I prospectively collected data on a new tobacco industry-funded scientific organisation, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW). I used document and content analysis to ascertain in what ways, if any, the practices of this new organisation reflect what is known about historical corporate influence on science (Papers II and III). Using experimental survey methods, I investigated the extent to which direct and indirect tobacco industry involvement in science is trusted by the public (Paper IV). Through this case study of contemporary tobacco industry influence on science (Papers II, III and IV) I also investigated whether current mechanisms for addressing tobacco industry influence on science are fit for purpose.
FINDINGS
Paper I: The typology identifies five macro-level strategies (comprising 19 meso-level strategies) used consistently by eight sectors of industry in attempts to influence science. The model demonstrates how these strategies work to create doubt about harms of industry products and practices or efficacy of policies affecting industry; promote industry-favoured policy responses and industry products as solutions; and legitimise industry’s role as a scientific stakeholder. These efforts ultimately serve to weaken policy, prevent litigation, and maximise the use of industry products and practices.
Paper II: Using the SPM as an analytic framework, marked similarities between FSFW’s practices and previous corporate attempts to influence science were found. These included producing tobacco industry-friendly research and opinion, obscuring industry involvement in science, funding third parties which denigrate science and scientists that may threaten industry profitability, and promoting tobacco industry credibility. These similarities lead me to conclude that FSFW should be understood as the latest in a line of industry-influenced scientific lobby groups.
Paper III: This paper investigated FSFW’s scientific publishing practices in the context of changes that have been implemented, based on historical evidence, to address industry influence on science. It found that FSFW and its grantees have resorted to repeated obfuscation when publishing their science. FSFW staff failed to act transparently and sought to control editorial processes (at times facilitated by a public relations firm). Researchers failed to disclose their links to FSFW and PMI.
Paper IV: This paper examined three key industry strategies identified within the SPM – manufacturing industry credibility, contracting messengers to create scientific “echo chambers”, and concealing industry involvement in science. It found that the UK public (especially those with conservative views) did not completely distrust tobacco industry involvement in science, and that when the tobacco industry channels its funds through a scientific third party (FSFW) this increases the perceived trustworthiness of the scientists and the science itself.
CONCLUSIONS
Collectively, these findings demonstrate: that corporations in diverse industries attempt to influence the system of science in similar ways in order to create agnogenesis and, ultimately, maximise their profits; that this influence is not only historical, with FSFW best understood as an industry-influenced lobby group functioning to further the interests of the tobacco industry; that the public and experts alike need to be better informed about strategies which industries use to influence science, particularly the use of third-party scientific organisations; and that current mechanisms for protecting science from undue influence on science are not fit for purpose. I propose policy and practice recommendations for ensuring science is in the public interest.
| Date of Award | 11 Oct 2023 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Anna Gilmore (Supervisor), Bryan Clift (Supervisor), Jennifer Hatchard (Supervisor) & Stephan Lewandowsky (Supervisor) |