The Reputational Challenge with Science
We need a robust scientific community exploring and determining and discovering. But science costs money. And corporations, which often rely on science for validation of things like product safety, environmental impact, or efficacy, have it.
For corporations involved in things that require scientific testing, don’t we expect them to do that testing, to engage outside experts to reach conclusions? I think we, society, do. Their reputation is tied up in it. But still we roll our eyes when we see some science that confirms facts in favor of the company that funded it. When it seems self-serving, we are incredulous.
Writes John Tierney in the New York Times: “Too often, corporate conflict-of-interest accusations have been used as smear tactics to silence scientists who ended up being correct.”
Science is at once a most revered and most reviled field, and corporate reliance on it cuts both ways.
There is in fact little proof, though there are some extreme, isolated examples, that the scientific community has been compromised by virulent corporate funding. Many might even argue science has flourished because it is so well-funded by corporations and other organizations, including government.
But it remains a communications and reputation challenge for corporations to convince its audience that the science it sponsors is honest.
From a message standpoint, “corporate” science is generally referred to in one of two ways. If you are against what the corporate-funded science purports to prove, you call it “junk science.” If you are for what the science shows, you say “Look, don’t take my word for it, this is independently conducted science.”
Actually, the same framework applies, if say, an advocacy group puts out science that delegitimizes a corporation’s particular claim.
It’s an easy narrative trap to fall into. But perhaps, for corporations, the best way to win the battle – and make no mistake, the media loves a science dust-up – is to demonstrate how they maintained a proper distance from the process and allowed for scientific integrity. In this age of transparency, the burden of proof rests with them.
We should care if corporate money funds science and I’m not saying there is never a conflict that the public should be made aware of. The trick is for corporations to show that the conflict is only perceived, not actual.
Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.
