March 28, 2007

Subcommittee Members Examine How Big Business and Science Agencies Conspire to Distort Science

(Washington, DC) - Members of the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations today questioned industry efforts and attempts within science agencies to control which federal scientists get access to the media and how media campaigns are mounted to confuse the public.

Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC) led today’s hearing which used climate change science as a case study to relate how the deception works. From the public’s perspective, climate change news stories often become little more than two “experts” staking out opposite positions. The fact that one “expert” may be articulating a consensus scientific position that represents the work of thousands of active researchers, and the other “expert” is paid to be a professional skeptic is not obvious to the average citizen.

"Industry often promotes made-for-television 'experts' who are supported by financial contributors that can be traced back primarily to the oil and gas industry,” said Chairman Miller. “Few of these experts do any original research, many are not even trained in the fields in which they claim expertise, most are readily available for the press and specialize in attacking as 'junk science' careful, legitimate research that has been published in learned journals and tested by rigorous peer review.”

The subcommittee heard testimony from the following witnesses today:

Sheldon Rampton, co-author of a series of books including “Toxic Sludge is Good for You” and “Trust Us, We’re Experts!” is also co-founder of SourceWatch.org. Rampton told the subcommittee that industry uses a technique that often hinges on “hiring” scientists to be “neutral” experts who will provide support for the industry’s contention that there is no harm in their products, while attacking the science that suggests that there is harm. Rampton says the technique goes back at least 40 years to early efforts by cigarette manufacturers.
Dr. James McCarthy of Harvard and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) testified about recent UCS reports, including one released in January on efforts funded by ExxonMobil to create doubt about global warming. The report, “Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air; How ExxonMobil uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science,” is the latest and most complete report to date on ExxonMobil’s support for climate change skeptics.
Terek Massarrani of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) released a new report today, “Redacting the Science of Climate Change,” regarding how federal scientists have experienced political interference with the public. GAP built the report on thousands of pages of e-mail traffic captured from Freedom of Information Act requests as well as dozens of interviews with scientists and other government employees. (A copy of the GAP report is attached. It can also be found on the Committee’s website at www.house.gov/science.)
Mr. Jeff Kueter, the President of the Marshall Institute was the Minority witness. The Marshall Institute is a leading center for providing experts who cast doubt on climate change science.

Chairman Miller reiterated that a democratic government relies on honest, fact-based discussions for a consensus to emerge regarding policies that reflect the best interests of the public.

"It's tough to make good policy from bad information," added full Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN). "This is a legitimate area for discussion and I think this will be the first of many hearings in this Committee seeking the best information possible."

“Inaction is the goal of manufactured scientific debate,” Chairman Miller added. “With inaction comes no challenge to change business models and no need to worry about short-term profit.”

Related Subcommittees

Next Article Previous Article