How to identify science being bent: The tobacco industry's fight to deny second-hand smoking health hazards as an example
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 75 (2012)
Issue (Month): 7 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Bero, Lisa A. Ph.D. & Hong, MiÂ-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.
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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.