"A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency biologist has resigned in protest of his agency's acceptance of a developer-financed study concluding that wetlands discharge more pollutants than they absorb, according to a statement released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). EPA's approval of the study gives developers credit for improving water quality by replacing natural wetlands with golf courses and other developments. ...
"White House officials have undermined their own government scientists' research into climate change to play down the impact of global warming," Paul Harris reports in the Observer. "Emails and internal government documents obtained by The Observer show that officials have sought to edit or remove research warning that the problem is serious.
A new study says the "Bush administration persistently manipulates scientific data to serve its ideology and protect the interests of its political supporters," the New York Times writes.
Officials with the British Ministry of Defence were preparing to destroy a "media plan" about Dr. David Kelly three days after his death, according to a the Telegraph. "It is not clear whether the papers were burned, but MoD officials admitted last night that ministry security guards called the police after finding the 'media plan' relating to the Kelly affair in a sack of classified waste being prepared for incineration," the paper reported.
Investigative journalist and PR Watch contributor Andrew Rowell's new book, Don't Worry -- It's Safe to Eat, exposes the hidden links between scientists, corporations and the government that have warped policy on three potent issues: genetic engineering (GE), BSE and Foot and Mouth disease. Rowell documents how politicians and corporate spin doctors have twisted the public health debate, allowing for inadequate and flawed regulation of the food industry.
Ten years ago, on June 28, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court issued "the most influential ruling you've never heard of," says the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy. In the case known as Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., they directing judges to act as "gatekeepers" in the courtroom, excluding expert testimony if they deemed it was "junk science." "But what started as a well-intentioned attempt to ensure reliable and relevant evidentiary science has had troubling consequences. ...
In its recent attempt to revise an EPA report on climate change and the environment, the White House cites a study by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics that has drawn harsh criticism from climatologists. "Greenhouse skeptics, pro-industry groups and political conservatives have seized on the results," David Appell writes in Scientific American.
"Nanotech joins biotech among those
promising technologies that hold the potential to
change our world radically," Citigate Cunningham vice president
Bill Bennett told PR trade publication The Holmes Report. Many in the PR industry are looking to nanotechology as the next big thing. "Such potential will never be without controversy, and already there are pockets
As we detail in our book Trust Us, We're Experts , 'junk science' is a PR pejorative used by corporations to smear environmentalists and public interest scientists.
Following the publication of an influential 1981 Japanese study linking secondhand cigarette smoke to lung cancer, the tobacco industry went on the attack, funding its own study to counter the Hirayama study. "The goal of the study was to produce a credible, peer reviewed article that could be used as a public relations tool," report Mi-Kyung Hong and Lisa A. Bero.