The Deception Behind "Sense about Science"

The UK nonprofit group Sense About Science has made the press recently with a new initiative to fact-check celebrities who make controversial claims about science.  They've distributed a leaflet that purports to correct statements about topics including organic food, alternative medicine, and animal welfare made by the likes of Madonna, Jamie Oliver, and Heather McCartney.

It makes for a good story (aren't those celebrities dumb!  let's stamp out bad science!) and the media has dutifully eaten it up.  But here's the thing: Sense About Science is arguably a public relations front group for industry.  Fact checking for celebrities?  How about fact checking for journalists.  Aren't they supposed to be the professionals?

My primary source for telling you SAS is biased is the non-profit Source Watch's article on the group.  (I've written about Source Watch previously here.)  For more background on SAS, here's an article by George Monbiot from the Guardian: Invasion of the entryists.

I first read about the Sense About Science Celebrity campaign in the January 6 edition of New Scientist magazine (the article is also online here: Celebrities Should Watch What they Say).  It also got written up elsewhere:

• The Times: Celebrities told to embrace the facts, not bad science,
• BBC: Stars must 'check science facts', When celebrities speak on science,
• The Guardian: Neutralise radiation and stay off milk: The truth about celebrity health claims,
• Blogs: Instapundit, Slashdot, and lots more.

None of these articles mentions the industry connections of Sense About Science.  Whether celebrities speak the truth or not is beside the point and is hardly newsworthy.  It's plain as day that SAS is pushing certain pro-industry viewpoints in some of this material.

Of course this isn't a unique occurrence.  Companies and PR firms go to enormous lengths to spin science reporting and public opinion in their favor.  With a little knowledge it's really not that hard to spot.  One good book on this subject is Trust Us, We're Experts by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber.  I recommend educating yourself as the best defense -- especially if you're a journalist.

Comments

[Hsien-Hsien Lei]

I checked out their website during the publicity blitz and wasn't overly impressed. Just goes to show that anything about celebrities sells. I've been known to use them as props too to attract attention.

[Orielwen]

It's unsurprising that industry bodies are represented on Sense About Science; after all, they are made up, ultimately, of scientists.

I read the George Monbiot article about the affiliations of the people involved and couldn't find a coherent point, and certainly no evidence of some grand conspiracy.

Having said which, I think the Sense About Science website is rather badly designed, with far too much reliance on PDFs which makes the information hard to access. For an organisation whose primary function is supposed to be communication, this is a big flaw.

[Kevin]

I agree that involvement of industry alone isn't enough to call shenanigans. But my understanding from reading about the history of this group is that some of the key personnel are public relations professionals and the group has engaged in pretty clear pro-GM food activities in particular.

[Cian O'Connor]

Kevin,
they're an RCP front group (or Spiked/Institute of Ideas, or whatever they're calling themselves). Astroturfing is positively innocent in comparison to the horror that is the RCP. I can't really do justice to them, but imagine an ex-trotskyist group, that pursued contrarianism and libertarianism to their logical conclusion. Then imagine one that was very good at tactics, at setting up front organisations, entryism, playing the media game (creating false debates and controversies). I'm always amazed by how far their influence stretches for such a small group.

The sad thing is that I don't think they really have a core ideology anymore, other than contrarianism.

Oh, and key thing about the RCP crowd. Big global warming deniers, and I've yet to meet one who knew the difference between science and technology.

[Kevin]

Cian -- thanks for the information!