What's More Dishonest: Scientists Taking Corporate Cash or Mudslingers Attacking Them?

Personal attacks on a speaker, especially about their funding, are a sign that the attacker can't dispute the facts the speaker is presenting. Beware the attacker too.


I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet.

                                                   Mahatma Ghandi

Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.

                                                  George Washington

Much has been said about FoltaGate, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the emails of University of Florida professor Kevin Folta, a scientist who advocates for genetically modified food technology. Most of the commentary has been about whether the FOIA request was a valid effort to find out if Folta had been corrupted by funding from Big Ag or just phishing for mud to sling, to undermine what Folta says. The selective way the phishers used the massive amount of information Folta and his university handed over — nothing only that Folta had received financial support from Monsanto to support his public speaking, to say the same things he’d been saying for years before he got that support — seems to answer that question. That and the fact that the FOIA request was initiated by an avowed anti-GMO group funded in part by the organic industry, operating under the disingenuous name US Right to Know.

In general, FOIA requests like this, and anything else journalists can do to find out whether someone claiming the trustworthy mantle of scientist/expert has been corrupted by funders, are a good idea. But they are being used more and more not by journalists, but by advocates on all sorts of issues (climate change, vaccines, obesity, gun control), not to honestly investigate whether someone's views have been bought and paid for, but just to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of what that person says.

This should be a Bright Red Flag to any journalist, and any reader with an open mind who isn’t already on one side or the other of any controversial issue. Mudslinging is generally what you do when what someone says, and their facts, can’t be attacked directly. It should automatically alert the journalist and reader to be skeptical not only of the person being attacked, but of the bias of the attackers. Journalists need to be a little more critical of the mudslingers, as has been the case in FoltaGate. (GMO Controversy: When Do Demands for Scientists records turn into harassment?) 

Money doesn’t always corrupt. Mostly the money finds those already saying what the funder likes. The views are honestly and sincerely held, and predate the cash.

There is another issue in FoltaGate that hasn’t been discussed too much. Of course money can corrupt, and journalists are right to dig into any source’s funding to look for such corruption. But it is simplistic, unfair, and frankly not very mature journalism, to simply say “Aha! He got money from some presumed bad actor (usually a corporation), and therefore you can’t trust anything he says.” There’s more to it than that. Money doesn’t always corrupt. Mostly the money finds those already saying what the funder likes. The views are honestly and sincerely held, and predate the cash.

Did the organics industry funding to Washington State University to support the work of Charles Benbrook turn him into an anti-GMO advocate? Of course not. His beliefs predated the money. It’s as unfair for pro-GMO advocates to attack Benbrook this way as is the hatchet job on Folta. Both of these people are sincere and committed to their views of the evidence. Their time may have been paid for. Their ideas and opinions are their own.

To be sure there are plenty of Merchants of Doubt examples of companies funding scientists and pundits and think tanks to say whatever the company wants; on tobacco, on acid rain and DDT and climate change (on climate change, read Ross Gelbspan’s books The Heat is On and Boiling Point). Of course there are many examples on the "green" side of environmental issues too — scientists and think tanks and advocacy groups funded by environmentalist sources to say only what those sources want them to say. James Hansen, a fierce advocate for action on climate change, talks in an op-ed in the Des Moines Register about the major environmental organizations that wanted to come out in favor of nuclear power as part of the solution for climate change ... but didn't because their major contributors said they'd stop funding them if they did.

But there are also many scientists and organizations that have spoken out on controversial issues, and either taken money from whatever side their views support or published something in conjunction with that side with absolutely no money changing hands, where the sincerely held views came first, and the contact from the other side came second. Dr. Paul Offit on childhood vaccines. Calestous Juma on GMOs. Climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen. The views are sincere. The people are honest. They just offer views, or facts, that the other side doesn’t like, or can’t dispute. So the other side throws mud at the person/organization, hoping to undermine the credibility of what these people/organizations say.

The mudslinging makes a lot of scientists leery to speak out. It muzzles some of the voices we need to hear from, to learn from, if we’re going to make informed choices about complicated issues.

This mudslinging is harmful in many ways. It worsens the polarization around the issue, which makes progress tougher to achieve. GMO opponents jumped all over Folta (with some really nasty personal stuff), while the pro-GMO advocates attacked the credibility and honesty of the journalists who broke the Folta story/hatchet job.

It makes funders leery of supporting work that could move these heated issues forward. The Gates Foundation gets huge pressure for funding honest independent research into GMOs as a way to help feed billions of people. The Rockefeller Foundation stopped funding GMO work after relentless pressure on their board from environmentalist/GMO opponents (and all Rockefeller was trying to do was open a dialogue on the issue, funding both sides.)

The mudslinging makes a lot of scientists leery to speak out. It muzzles some of the voices we need to hear from, to learn from, if we’re going to make informed choices about complicated issues.

And it lures journalists toward an easy story angle that distracts them from reporting on the substantive factual questions the public needs to understand to make more fully informed decisions about the issue itself.

So, yay for digging into and reporting on any source’s funding. But boo for the naïve assumption that journalists, and you and I, make that any funding from any suspect source automatically makes everything someone says suspect. Advocates will continue to use this ad hominem mudslinging to attack their opponents. We can't expect that to change. But we can demand that our journalists provide the public a more mature analysis of whose positions seem to be honest and whose facts seem to be well-supported by the evidence, regardless of who paid the speaker to speak out.  

--

David Ropeik is an Instructor at Harvard, a consultant in risk perception and risk communication, author of How Risky Is it, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts, and principal co-author of RISK, A Practical Guide for Deciding What's Really Safe and What's Really Dangerous in the World Around You. He runs a program called Improving Media Coverage of Risk and was the Director of Risk Communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, part of the Harvard School of Public Health, for 4 years, prior to which he was a TV reporter, specializing in environmental issues, for a local station in Boston for 22 years.

Getty Images, sarahwolfephotography

Cambridge scientists create a successful "vaccine" against fake news

A large new study uses an online game to inoculate people against fake news.

University of Cambridge
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Researchers from the University of Cambridge use an online game to inoculate people against fake news.
  • The study sample included 15,000 players.
  • The scientists hope to use such tactics to protect whole societies against disinformation.
Keep reading Show less

Yale scientists restore brain function to 32 clinically dead pigs

Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.

Still from John Stephenson's 1999 rendition of Animal Farm.
Surprising Science
  • Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
  • They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
  • The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.

The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?

But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.

What's dead may never die, it seems

The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.

BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.

The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.

As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.

The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.

"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.

An ethical gray matter

Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.

The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.

Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.

Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?

"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."

One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.

The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.

"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.

It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.

Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?

The dilemma is unprecedented.

Setting new boundaries

Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."

She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.

5 facts you should know about the world’s refugees

Many governments do not report, or misreport, the numbers of refugees who enter their country.

David McNew/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs

Conflict, violence, persecution and human rights violations led to a record high of 70.8 million people being displaced by the end of 2018.

Keep reading Show less