A case for
common sense, some of it influenced by ancient wisdom, or survivalism, as in
avoiding Collapse. KwC
COMMENTARY
The Art of 'Manufacturing Uncertainty'
By David Michaels, LA Times, June 24, 2005
David Michaels, a
professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health, served
as assistant secretary of Energy between 1998 and 2001.
To many scientists and policymakers in Washington, the
revelation this month that Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House
Council on Environmental Quality, had rewritten a federal report to magnify the
level of uncertainty on climate change came as no surprise. Uncertainty is
easily manipulated, and Cooney — a former lobbyist with the American Petroleum
Institute, one of the nation's leading manufacturers of scientific uncertainty
— was highly familiar with its uses.
As an epidemiologist with a special interest in occupational diseases, I share
a fundamental problem with the scientists who are studying climate change. Our
ability to conduct laboratory experiments is limited; we can't go out and
intentionally expose people to carcinogens any more than climatologists can
measure future temperatures. Instead, we must harness "natural
experiments," collecting data through observation only. We then build
models from this data, and use these models to make causal inferences and
predictions, and, where possible, to recommend protective measures.
By definition,
uncertainties abound in our work; there's nothing to be done about that. Our
public health and environmental protection programs will not be effective if
absolute proof is required before we act. The best available evidence must be
sufficient. Otherwise, we'll sit on our hands and do nothing.
Of course, this is often exactly what industry wants. That's why it has
mastered the art of manufacturing uncertainty, of demanding often impossible
proof over common-sense
precaution in the
realm of public health.
The tobacco industry led the way. For 50 years, cigarette manufacturers
employed a stable of scientists willing to assert (sometimes under oath) that
there was no conclusive evidence that cigarettes cause lung cancer, or that
nicotine is addictive. An official at Brown & Williamson, a cigarette maker
now owned by R.J. Reynolds, once noted in a memo: "Doubt is our product
since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in
the mind of the general public."
Toward that end, the tobacco manufacturers dissected every study, highlighted
every question, magnified every flaw, cast every possible doubt every possible
time. They also
conjured their own studies with questionable data and foregone conclusions. It was all a charade, of course, because the real science
was inexorable. But the uncertainty campaign was effective; it delayed public
health protections, and compensation for tobacco's victims, for decades.
The tobacco
industry, left without a stitch of credibility or public esteem, has finally
abandoned that strategy — but it led the way for others. Every polluter and
manufacturer of toxic chemicals understands that by fostering a debate on uncertainties in the underlying science and by harping
on the need for more research — always more research — it can avoid
debating the actual policy or regulation in question.
It is now unusual for the science behind a public health or environmental
regulation not to be challenged.
In recent years, corporations have mounted campaigns to question studies
documenting the adverse health effects of exposure to, among others, beryllium,
lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, chromium, benzene, benzidine and nickel.
Manufacturing uncertainty is a business in itself. You too can launch a pretty
good campaign. All you need is the money with which to hire one of the main
players in the "product-defense industry," many of whose stalwarts
first honed their craft defending cigarette smoke. These firms will hire the
scientists, throw the mud, crank up the fog machine.
A classic case is beryllium, a lightweight metal useful in nuclear weapons. For
many years it has been clear that workers exposed to beryllium levels below the
federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration standard can develop
chronic beryllium disease.
When OSHA tried to lower the standard, the industry hired Exponent, a leading
product-defense firm to focus on all the things we don't understand, calling
for more research before OSHA could act. Meanwhile, workers are still exposed
at the old, unsafe level, and are still getting sick.
Among themselves, these product-defense lobbyists and their clients make no
secret of what they're doing. Republican political consultant Frank Luntz wrote
in a memo, later leaked to the press: "The
scientific debate remains open…. Should the public
come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about
global warming will change accordingly."
Decades from now, this campaign to manufacture uncertainty will surely be
viewed with the same dismay and outrage with which we now look back on the
deceits perpetrated by the tobacco industry. But will it be too late?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-michaels24jun24,0,5513408.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
