IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0253272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice

Author

Listed:
  • Tess Legg
  • Jenny Hatchard
  • Anna B Gilmore

Abstract

Science has been at the centre of attempts by major industries, including tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical, to delay progress in tackling threats to human and planetary health by, inter alia, obscuring industry harms, and opposing regulation. Some aspects of this influence are well documented, others remain poorly understood, and similarities between industries remain underexplored. This study, therefore, aims to synthesise the literature to develop an evidence-based typology and model of corporate influence on science in order to provide an overview of this multi-faceted phenomenon. We obtained literature examining corporate attempts to influence science and the use of science in policy and practice from: database searches, bibliographies, expert recommendations, and web alerts; using a modified scoping review methodology (n = 68). Through interpretive analysis we developed the Science for Profit Typology and Model. We identified eight corporate sectors repeatedly engaging in activities to influence science, including: manipulation of scientific methods; reshaping of criteria for establishing scientific “proof”; threats against scientists; and clandestine promotion of policy reforms that increase reliance on industry evidence. The typology identifies five macro-level strategies used consistently across the eight industries, comprising 19 meso-level strategies. The model shows how these strategies work to maximise the volume, credibility, reach, and use of industry-favourable science, while minimising these same aspects of industry-unfavourable science. This creates doubt about harms of industry products/practices or efficacy of policies affecting industry; promotes industry-favoured policy responses and industry products as solutions; and legitimises industry’s role as scientific stakeholder. These efforts ultimately serve to weaken policy, prevent litigation, and maximise use of industry products/practices—maximising corporate profitability. We provide an accessible way to understand how and why corporations influence science, demonstrate the need for collective solutions, and discuss changes needed to ensure science works in the public interest.

Suggested Citation

  • Tess Legg & Jenny Hatchard & Anna B Gilmore, 2021. "The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-24, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0253272
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253272
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253272&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0253272?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baba, A. & Cook, D.M. & McGarity, T.O. & Bero, L.A., 2005. "Legislating "sound science": The role of the tobacco industry," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(S1), pages 20-27.
    2. Babor, T.F. & Robaina, K., 2013. "Public health, academic medicine, and the alcohol industry's corporate social responsibility activities," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(2), pages 206-214.
    3. Brandt, A.M., 2012. "Inventing conflicts of interest: A history of Tobacco industry tactics," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(1), pages 63-71.
    4. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    5. Selda Ulucanlar & Gary J Fooks & Jenny L Hatchard & Anna B Gilmore, 2014. "Representation and Misrepresentation of Scientific Evidence in Contemporary Tobacco Regulation: A Review of Tobacco Industry Submissions to the UK Government Consultation on Standardised Packaging," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, March.
    6. The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2012. "Does Conflict of Interest Disclosure Worsen Bias?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-2, April.
    7. Emily Savell & Anna B Gilmore & Gary Fooks, 2014. "How Does the Tobacco Industry Attempt to Influence Marketing Regulations? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
    8. Michaels, D. & Monforton, C., 2005. "Manufacturing uncertainty: Contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(S1), pages 39-48.
    9. Linda Hancock & Natalie Ralph & Florentine Petronella Martino, 2018. "Applying Corporate Political Activity (CPA) analysis to Australian gambling industry submissions against regulation of television sports betting advertising," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, October.
    10. Jernigan, D.H., 2012. "Global alcohol producers, science, and policy: The case of the international center for alcohol policies," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(1), pages 80-89.
    11. Ong, E.K. & Glantz, S.A., 2001. "Constructing "sound science" and "good epidemiology": Tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(11), pages 1749-1757.
    12. Katherine E Smith & Gary Fooks & Jeff Collin & Heide Weishaar & Sema Mandal & Anna B Gilmore, 2010. "“Working the System”—British American Tobacco's Influence on the European Union Treaty and Its Implications for Policy: An Analysis of Internal Tobacco Industry Documents," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    13. Selda Ulucanlar & Gary J Fooks & Anna B Gilmore, 2016. "The Policy Dystopia Model: An Interpretive Analysis of Tobacco Industry Political Activity," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    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. Gary Sacks & Devorah Riesenberg & Melissa Mialon & Sarah Dean & Adrian J Cameron, 2020. "The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Jenny L Hatchard & Joao Quariguasi Frota Neto & Christos Vasilakis & Karen A Evans-Reeves, 2019. "Tweeting about public health policy: Social media response to the UK Government’s announcement of a Parliamentary vote on draft standardised packaging regulations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Florentine Petronella Martino & Peter Graeme Miller & Kerri Coomber & Linda Hancock & Kypros Kypri, 2017. "Analysis of Alcohol Industry Submissions against Marketing Regulation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Rima Nakkash & Ahmed Ali & Hala Alaouie & Khalil Asmar & Norbert Hirschhorn & Sanaa Mugharbil & Iman Nuwayhid & Leslie London & Amina Saban & Sabina Faiz Rashid & Md Koushik Ahmed & Cecile Knai & Char, 2020. "Attitudes and practices of public health academics towards research funding from for-profit organizations: cross-sectional survey," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 65(7), pages 1133-1145, September.
    5. Valente, Thomas W. & Pitts, Stephanie & Wipfli, Heather & Vega Yon, George G., 2019. "Network influences on policy implementation: Evidence from a global health treaty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 188-197.
    6. Eastmure, Elizabeth & Cummins, Steven & Sparks, Leigh, 2020. "Non-market strategy as a framework for exploring commercial involvement in health policy: A primer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    7. Gary Fooks & Anna Gilmore & Jeff Collin & Chris Holden & Kelley Lee, 2013. "The Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility: Techniques of Neutralization, Stakeholder Management and Political CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 283-299, January.
    8. Patricia A McDaniel & Ruth E Malone, 2020. "Tobacco industry and public health responses to state and local efforts to end tobacco sales from 1969-2020," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-25, May.
    9. Sarah E. Hill & Sharon Friel, 2020. "‘As Long as It Comes off as a Cigarette Ad, Not a Civil Rights Message’: Gender, Inequality and the Commercial Determinants of Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-19, October.
    10. MacKenzie, Ross & Mathers, Annalise & Hawkins, Benjamin & Eckhardt, Jappe & Smith, Julia, 2018. "The tobacco industry’s challenges to standardised packaging: A comparative analysis of issue framing in public relations campaigns in four countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(9), pages 1001-1011.
    11. Liliana Cori & Gabriele Donzelli & Francesca Gorini & Fabrizio Bianchi & Olivia Curzio, 2020. "Risk Perception of Air Pollution: A Systematic Review Focused on Particulate Matter Exposure," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-27, September.
    12. Rosemary Hiscock & Nicole H Augustin & J Robert Branston & Anna B Gilmore, 2020. "Standardised packaging, minimum excise tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, February.
    13. Maria Margarida Paixão & Mélissa Mialon, 2019. "Help or Hindrance? The Alcohol Industry and Alcohol Control in Portugal," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-10, November.
    14. Qing Xu & Joshua Yang & Michael R. Haupt & Mingxiang Cai & Matthew C. Nali & Tim K. Mackey, 2021. "Digital Surveillance to Identify California Alternative and Emerging Tobacco Industry Policy Influence and Mobilization on Facebook," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-12, October.
    15. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    16. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    17. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    18. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    19. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    20. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0253272. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.