IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v75y2012i7p1230-1235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to identify science being bent: The tobacco industry's fight to deny second-hand smoking health hazards as an example

Author

Listed:
  • Rochel de Camargo, Kenneth

Abstract

Social studies of science have produced a critical description of science that challenges traditional ideas about “objectivity” and “neutrality”. Given evidence that scientific tools have been used to undermine solid science against the interests of the general public as opposed to protecting society from findings prematurely declared to be facts, this article asks: how can one differentiate between the usual proceedings of scientists and deliberate attempts to distort science? In order to respond to this question, the author presents systematic studies of the distortion (or “bending”) of science, with special attention to the role of public relation firms in the process. Drawing on examples from the tobacco industry, the article concludes that there are two key features of the tobacco industry case that indicate that distortions in science may have taken place: the fact that controversies surrounding tobacco has been centered in public forums, and legal or regulatory arenas more than scientific domains; and the presence of conflicts of interest in authorship and funding.

Suggested Citation

  • Rochel de Camargo, Kenneth, 2012. "How to identify science being bent: The tobacco industry's fight to deny second-hand smoking health hazards as an example," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1230-1235.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:7:p:1230-1235
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612004443
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.057?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bero, Lisa A. Ph.D. & Hong, Mi­-Kyung, 2002. "How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt1p96m101, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    2. Landman, Anne & Cortese, Daniel K. & Glantz, Stanton, 2008. "Tobacco industry sociological programs to influence public beliefs about smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 970-981, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mamudu, Hadii M. & Hammond, Ross & Glantz, Stanton, 2008. "Tobacco industry attempts to counter the World Bank report curbing the epidemic and obstruct the WHO framework convention on tobacco control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1690-1699, December.
    2. Klausner, Kim & Landman, Anne & Taketa, Rachel, 2014. "“Create a Bigger Monster:” Tobacco industry actions to neutralize three landmark Surgeon Generals’ Reports," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt71b8s1c9, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:7:p:1230-1235. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.