IMO, industry uses psychology to get people to change their behavior far more effectively and scientifically than psychotherapists. In an article in Environmental Health, (2021; 20: 33. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996119/. Goldberg and Vandenberg describe 28 unique tactics used by industries to manufacture doubt or confusion about science when it serves their interests. These messages are then frequently amplified by perpetuators of doubt – journalists, bloggers, citizen scientists, and lay-people – who, on their own without direct funding, unwittingly disseminate and spread pro-industry spin. The Pharma industry tactics used to manufacture doubt are:
|
1 |
Attack Study Design |
Emphasize study design flaws in negative studies that have only minimal effects on outcomes. Flaws include issues
related to bias, confounding, or sample size |
|
2 |
Gain Support from Reputable
Individuals |
Recruit experts or influential
people in certain fields (politicians, industry, journals, doctors,
scientists, health officials) to defend their biases in order
to gain broader support |
|
3 |
Misrepresent Data |
Cherry-pick data, design studies to
fail, or conduct meta-analyses to dilute the work of critics |
|
4 |
Suppress Incriminating Information |
Hide information that runs counter
to their interests |
|
5 |
Contribute Misleading Literature |
Use literature published in journals
or the media to deliberately misinform, or use peripheral topics as a distraction |
|
6 |
Host Conferences or Seminars |
Organize conferences for scientists
or relevant stakeholders to provide a space for dissemination of only information in line with their economic interests. |
|
7 |
Avoid/Abuse Peer-Review |
Avoid the peer-review process to
publish poor literature, publish without revealing funding sources, use the
journal name to add weight to claims, or minimize need for peer-review among
lay audiences |
|
8 |
Employ Hyperbolic or Absolutist
Language |
Discuss scientific findings in
absolutist terms or with hyperbole, using buzzwords to differentiate between
“strong” and “poor” science (i.e. sound science, junk science, etc.), |
|
9 |
Blame Other Causes |
Find related, alternative causes for any negative effects that are reported or observed |
|
10 |
Invoke Liberties/Censorship/ Overregulation |
Invoke laws to emphasize equality
and rights for expression of their preferred data or interpretations thereof, despite differences in evidence quality |
|
11 |
Define How to Measure
Outcome/Exposure |
Attempt to set guidelines for
‘proper’ measurement of exposures or outcomes, while undermining guidelines not in line with what they want. |
|
12 |
Take Advantage of Scientific
Illiteracy (media/individuals) |
Emphasize scientific obscurity to
confuse lay audiences, or deliberately disseminate unscientific or false but easily digestible information |
|
13 |
Pose as a Defender of Health or
Truth |
Represent their goals as
health-conscious or dedicated to truth |
|
14 |
Obscure involvement |
Ghostwrite, create shell companies,
use attorney client privilege to hide the true source of their data |
|
15 |
Develop a PR Strategy |
Devise methods for specifically
reaching public audiences to spread their messages |
|
16 |
Appeal to Mass Media |
Appealing to journalistic balance,
developing relationships with media personnel, preparing information for
media personnel, invoking the Fairness Doctrine |
|
17 |
Take Advantage of Victim’s Lack of
Money/Influence |
Silence or abuse critical individuals by
out-spending or exploiting a power imbalance |
|
18 |
Normalize Negative Outcomes |
Normalize the presence of negative
effects of their products to reduce their apparent importance and make them seem inevitable |
|
19 |
Impede Government Regulation |
Overwhelm governmental regulatory
agencies to slow or stop their function |
|
20 |
Alter Product to Seem Healthier |
Make modifications to harmful
product to reduce public appreciation of their negative effects |
|
21 |
Influence Government/Laws |
Gain inappropriate proximity to
regulatory bodies and encourage pro-company policies |
|
22 |
Attack Opponents
(scientifically/personally) |
Conduct targeted attacks on
opponents by undermining their professional or personal reputations |
|
23 |
Appeal to Emotion |
Manipulate an audiences’ emotions to
draw support for their claims in the absence of facts |
|
24 |
Inappropriately Question Causality |
Argue that correlation does not
equal causation despite the presence of strong evidence |
|
25 |
Make Straw Man Arguments |
Publicly refute an argument that was
not even made by the opposition |
|
26 |
Abuse Credentials |
Use qualifications in one discipline
to assume authority in another discipline |
|
27 |
Abuse Data Access Requests |
Requesting access to data in order
to misrepresent and attack, employing Shelby Amendment, Freedom of
Information Act, etc.. |
|
28 |
Claim Slippery Slope |
Illogically or falsely claiming that
there will be disastrous consequences if their ideology is not supported |
