WHEN DOES SCIENCE BECOME PROPAGANDA? What does this suggest for democracy? (2023)

What does this suggest for democracy?

Our 2023 discussion paper: When does science become propaganda? What does this suggest for democracy? sheds light on a growing problem across representative democracies. If policy-relevant information is to represent the public interest, it must be transparent and accountable. Conflicts of interest must be declared, and bias accounted for. For the decisions of officials, including elected representatives, must reflect the public interest.

But when corporate science and corporate tech promises provides the underpinning rationale for release onto the market of technologies, and for use of technology by governments and societies, - and there is no countervailing balance by public interest science, our government decision-makers are biased. They're not doing their job. Their rules structure these permissions - but they've designed them. They often keep important issues outside their scope. Such decision-making is contrary to the public interest and it's contrary to principles of democracy and public law.

Trustee Jodie Bruning published a related article at the Brownstone Institute.

There is extensive information in the social and scientific literature on the capture of regulatory agencies and governments by industries and their favoured relationships with these industries. However, these issues remain largely undisclosed and undiscussed across legacy media, by elected representatives and in government consultations and in policy formulation.

The information that supports the release onto the market and into the environment of technologies and their emissions that governments, their departments and regulators depend upon, is broadly controlled by the same industries that seek market access and re-authorisation of these products. Commercial in confidence clauses keep this information secret. The information is not subjected to normative scientific processes, it is often not published nor exposed to independent and impartial peer review.

This produces a major distorting effect on democratic processes – the information is neither transparent nor accountable. It is captured by the private interests and ever-expanding collegial private and public institutions that might also financially or politically benefit. When information is tainted, outdated or narrow in scope, officials are unable to fulfil their public law objectives, to put the public interest first by considering all the relevant matters relating to the issue.

An enormous body of work across Parliament and the administrative sector involves the development of policy, statute and rules which theoretically should steward this information in the public interest. However, this is less likely to occur when the information is corrupted and steered to favouring industry claims, and industry science, like a computer file might be corrupted.

The problem impacts courts. The judiciary depends on the impartial supply of information for decision-making when disputes and controversies arise. However, there is potential for major injustices to occur when the judiciary defer to government officials and agents, who themselves, lean on industry data and claims, while failing to consult the broader published literature.

Yet if this information is funnelled between private industry and the agency or regulator, and not subjected to critical review nor debate, how can the claims of private industry be correct? If the claims by private industry and regulatory officials and not countered by broad interdisciplinary expertise, by scientists without financial conflicts of interest industry claims cannot be countered nor upheld. Similarly, if agencies and regulatory authorities consistently fail to methodologically review the peer reviewed literature to explore new knowledge and review non-industry produced information and data to balance claims, private sector assertions cannot be upheld.

Yet the fusing of technology into policy, the increasing emissions and exposures that society are expected to tolerate, are far more extensive than that of previous generations. There is a vast literature drawing attention to new risks, yet this information is rarely parsed by officials and agencies who claim benefits from the technologies.

To all appearances the problem not only results in a massive distorting effect in decision-making, this problem increases the prospect for abuse of power and injustice, it increases the likelihood that harms will remain unrecognised, and indeed, continue, because the science used by government do not recognise those harms.

With this perspective – how can society, how can present and future generations and how can the environment be protected?

This paper When does science become propaganda? What does this suggest for democracy? has been released with the intention of prompting and encouraging debate on this democratic dilemma.

August, 2023

Suggested citation. PSGR (2023) When does science become propaganda? What does this suggest for democracy? Bruning, J.R., Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand. ISBN 978-0-473-68632-1

Link: https://psgr.org.nz/component/jdownloads/send/1-root/106-23-propaganda

Download

WHEN DOES SCIENCE BECOME PROPAGANDA? What does this suggest for democracy? (2023)

What does this suggest for democracy?

Information

Providing scientific & medical information & analysis in the service of the public's right to be independently informed on issues relating to human & environmental health.