Article: Does Science Media Centre Promote Corporate Views of Science?

[me/cfs 27931]

Some investigative reporting on the Science Media Center. Mentions ME/CFS. Quite a bit of interesting info in the full article.

Does Science Media Centre Promote Corporate Views of Science?

Posted on July 20, 2017 by Stacy Malkan
https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/science-media-centre/

The Science Media Centre (SMC) is a nonprofit PR agency started in the UK that gets its largest block of funding from industry groups. Current and past funders include Bayer, DuPont, Monsanto, Coca-Cola and food and chemical industry trade groups, as well as media groups, government agencies, foundations and universities. The SMC model is spreading around the world and has been influential in shaping media coverage of science, sometimes in ways that downplay the risks of controversial products or technologies.

This fact sheet describes SMC history, philosophy, funding model, tactics and reports from critics who have said SMC offers pro-industry science views, a charge SMC denies.

Discrediting Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

A 2013 paper by Malcolm Hopper, Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Sunderland, UK, reported evidence that SMC promoted the views of certain psychiatrists while ignoring other evidence that contradicted the psychiatrists’ theory, in an effort to discredit people with ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

“For those not blinded by the SMC’s dazzling aura, it appears that its covert purpose is to ensure that journalists and the media report scientific and medical matters only in a way that conforms to government and industry’s ‘policy’ on the issues in question.”

“An organisation which behaves in such a blatantly unscientific way can have no legitimate claim to represent science.”​

 

[alex3619]

My answer to the title is a little rhetorical, and classic. Is the Pope Catholic? I wouldn't want to argue that the SMC is always promoting their sponsors, but it has been reported in the regular media more than a few times that they have done this, and the last article I can vaguely recall reading some years back referred to at least five times they have been caught.

When in doubt I tend to think of the UK SMC as a public relations firm, not a neutral media firm.

 

[Sean]

Does Science Media Centre Promote Corporate Views of Science?

The Science Media Centre (SMC) is a nonprofit PR agency started in the UK that gets its largest block of funding from industry groups.

Those who pay the PR piper call the tune.

Apart from which, as I have said before, I think the whole notion of a single source for 'approved' information about science is utter madness, just ripe for exploitation and abuse.

 

[alex3619]

Those who pay the PR piper call the tune.

Apart from which, as I have said before, I think the whole notion of a single source for 'approved' information about science is utter madness, just ripe for exploitation and abuse.

... but just right for authoritarian dictates.

 

[Barry53]

Does Science Media Centre Promote Corporate Views of Science?

Turn the question on its head: "What, seriously, is the probability the SMC does not promote corporate and government interests?" Close to zero would be my suggestion.

 

[Forbin]

Revolutionary Communist Roots
The founding and current directors of Science Media Centre and Sense About Science – SMC Director Fiona Fox and SAS Director Tracey Brown – and others involved with those groups, were reportedly connected through the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Trotskyist splinter party organized in the late 1970s under the leadership of sociologist Frank Ferudi, according to writers George Monbiot, Jonathan Matthews, Zac Goldsmith and Don Maisch.

https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/science-media-centre/

Oh, good grief!

I seem to recall another revolutionary group that decided the real action was in the media...

WARNING! LOTS OF LOUD PROFANITY! (but it did win Best Original Screenplay )

​

 

[Valentijn]

Journalism professor Connie St. Louis of City University, London, evaluated SMC’s impact on science reporting in 12 national newspapers in 2011 and 2012, and found:

• 60% of articles covering SMC press briefings did not use an independent source
• 54% of “expert reactions” reactions offered by SMC to breaking news during the time period covered were in the news
  • Of these stories, 23% did not use an independent source
  • Of those that did, only 32% of the external sources offered an opposing view to that offered by the expert in the SMC reaction.

David Miller, professor of sociology from the University of Bath, UK, analyzed SMC content on the website and via Freedom of Information Act requests, and reported:

• Some 20 of the 100 most quoted SMC experts were not scientists, as defined by having a PhD and working at a research institution or a top learned society, but were lobbyists for and CEOs of industry groups.
• Funding sources were not always completely or timely disclosed online.
• There was no evidence of SMC favoring a particular funder, but it did favor particular corporate sectors and topics it covered “reflect the priorities of their funders.”

I would also add that the SMC was funded by at least one university of a principal PACE author in the past, during which time its coverage was especially biased and aggressive in attacking patients. Their more recent coverage, after several years with no funding from PACE, was much more neutral and included some decent criticism of whatever psychobabble they were covering.

SMC says it caps donations from any one company or institution to 5% of annual income in an effort to “protect from undue influence” – exceptions are made for larger donations from the Wellcome Trust and the UK government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

So they think they're unbiased because they don't let one corporation buy them substantially more than the other corporations can? Those payments still represent a pretty huge conflict of interest - one which I don't recall them ever declaring in their little press releases.

 

[Sean]

5% of your income is not small change.

 

[Esther12]

I didn't think that this was a very good article. A shame, as I think a detailed look of how the SMC treated CFS and PACE would totally discredit them.

 

[Large Donner]

• Some 20 of the 100 most quoted SMC experts were not scientists, as defined by having a PhD and working at a research institution or a top learned society, but were lobbyists for and CEOs of industry groups.

The other 80 did have all the necessary qualifications and were also lobbyists for and CEOs of industry groups as well.

 

[Demepivo]

Critics of SMC have inlcuded George Monbiot, Jonathan Matthews, Don Maisch. & Zac Goldsmith. Goldsmith presumably is anti SMC due toGM crops, pesticides & the agro-chemical military complex which fund the SMC.

Zac Goldmsith is back in Parliament...I have contacted a PWME in his constituency with this article....

Not a big fan of his (London Mayoral election & racism) but your enemy's enemy is your friend.

 

[Demepivo]

Update: my contact lives in the neighbouring constituency where Vince Cable is the MP.

There does seem to be an active ME group in Richmond, they hosted the MEA Q&A a few years ago. I'll get in contact with them.

 

[TiredSam]

I didn't think that this was a very good article. A shame, as I think a detailed look of how the SMC treated CFS and PACE would totally discredit them.

I rather liked it. Mainly because it's nice to know that it's not just us trying to tell the world how appalling the SMC is, and that we may have common cause with people who actually have a chance of being listened to.

 

[Esther12]

I rather liked it. Mainly because it's nice to know that it's not just us trying to tell the world how appalling the SMC is, and that we may have common cause with people who actually have a chance of being listened to.

I thought it just compiled a few sources, not all of which were great. I think that I have done some extensivce SMC googling over the years though.