Literature DB >> 22726621

How to identify science being bent: the tobacco industry's fight to deny second-hand smoking health hazards as an example.

Kenneth Rochel De Camargo1.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22726621     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  4 in total

1.  Public health, science, and policy debate: being right is not enough.

Authors:  Kenneth Camargo; Roy Grant
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  The 2014 Surgeon General's report: commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the 1964 Report of the Advisory Committee to the US Surgeon General and updating the evidence on the health consequences of cigarette smoking.

Authors:  Anthony J Alberg; Donald R Shopland; K Michael Cummings
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript.

Authors:  Tamar R Makin; Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 8.140

4.  Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation: a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK Government consultation on standardised packaging.

Authors:  Selda Ulucanlar; Gary J Fooks; Jenny L Hatchard; Anna B Gilmore
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 11.069

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.