Networks of Influence: PR, Lies and the Biotech Industry

[Guest guest]

PR, Lies and the Biotech Industry - Networks of Influence

 

 

" GM Watch " <info

Tue, 5 Oct 2004 21:16:49 +0100

 

 

 

Networks of Influence: PR, Lies and the Biotech Industry

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

Here's the abstract of a recent conference paper, using data from GM

Watch (and elsewhere), by Kean Birch <kbirch We'll be

bringing you further excerpts from this interesting paper. (We have taken

the liberty of introducing paragraphs into the Abstract)

------

Networks of Influence: PR, Lies and the Biotech Industry

 

Abstract

 

In their book 'Deceit and Denial' Markowitz and Rosner (2002)

illustrate how the US Manufacturing Chemist's Association (MCA) sought

to change

the terms of the debate over the chemicals industry after World War 2

by highlighting how " feeding the world will depend on the use of

chemicals " (p. 144).

Five decades later the same sort of sentiment is used to justify the

development of biotechnology. Did chemistry therefore fail?

 

Perhaps it is better to view both sets of claims as rhetorical, rather

than scientific, statements which show how science and technology are

far from neutral, as are the economic ramifications of their

development. Thus despite lead being shown to be dangerous in 1918 the

lead

industry engaged in a 35 year advertising campaign to promote lead

paint and

stem their industry's decline.

 

In relation to biotechnology a plethora of organisations have been

established internationally and nationally to promote the use of new

genetics across a range of different industrial sectors, although

predominantly focusing on healthcare and agriculture.

 

Some of the UK based organisations include the Scientific Alliance

(SA), Sense About Science (SAS), the Institute of Ideas (IoI),

International Policy Network (IPN), the Agricultural Biotechnology

Council (ABC),

Science Media Centre (SMC) and Cropgen (Rowell 2003b).

 

The establishment of such promotional organisations tends to contradict

the very conceit of science that it is only valid in objective terms.

Why therefore does it need rhetorical promotion?

 

For example, in a May 2004 Guardian comment piece Dick Taverne (Chair

of SAS) attacked organic farming claiming that it is essentially the

cause of starvation in the world for sidelining genetically modified (GM)

crops. The preposterousness of this claim is not worthy of

consideration since Taverne has either not bothered to read about the

subject

properly or was using the forum to push his point of view. Thus in

2003 the

BBSRC (the biological sciences public funding body) was only funding 1

organic farm project against 26 GM farm projects (Monbiot 2003).

Perhaps more worrying is that the House of Lords Select Committee on

Science

and Technology even wanted to ban newspapers from printing headlines

that were critical of GM (Smith 2004).

 

Delving behind Taverne's comments reveals a network of people organised

to promote a specific approach (biotechnology) to solving our problems

(ill-health and hunger), an approach that appears to ignore both basic

scientific research and democratic sovereignty.

 

However, it is nothing new as it is merely the most recent indication

of how the public relations (PR) industry is used to promote corporate

concerns over those of citizens and consumers.

 

For example, earlier this year GeneWatch highlighted how British

American Tobacco (BAT) had invested £6.6 million between 1990-95 in

research

designed to find a " genetic predisposition " to lung cancer. GeneWatch

went on to argue that this research funding was a deliberate policy on

the part of BAT to shift responsibility onto consumers and away from the

company, thereby externalising any economic costs – i.e. lung cancer

treatment (Observer May 2004).

 

This paper is therefore going to trace the PR strategy surrounding the

biotech industry and try to show how it impacts upon the developments

in science and technology. It will also seek to explicate the economic

underpinnings of this strategy and the benefits that accrue to actors

and corporations that support this system.