Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33771171›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2021

The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health.

Rebecca F Goldberg, Laura N Vandenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Addressing systemic problems with exposure assessments to protect the public's health.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rebecca F GoldbergGraduate Program in Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7019-1904
Laura N VandenbergDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 171C Goessmann, 686 N. Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA. lvandenberg@schoolph.umass.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6807-9136

Funding

Metabolomics Administrative Supplement: Disruption of parity-induced tumor suppressor pathways by xenoestrogen exposures during pregnancyU01ES026140 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST · PI JERRY, D. JOSEPH, SCHNEIDER, SALLIE SMITH · 2015 to 2019
$3.7M
NIEHS NIH HHS U01 ES026140NIEHS NIH HHS U01ES026140
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous groups, such as the tobacco industry, have deliberately altered and misrepresented knowable facts and empirical evidence to promote an agenda, often for monetary benefit, with consequences for environmental and public health. Previous research has explored cases individually, but none have conducted an in-depth comparison between cases. The purpose of this study was to compile a comprehensive list of tactics used by disparate groups and provide a framework for identifying further instances of manufactured doubt.

methodsWe examined scholarly books, peer-reviewed articles, well-researched journalism pieces, and legal evidence related to five disparate industries and organizations selected for their destructive impacts on environmental and public health (tobacco, coal, and sugar industries, manufacturers of the pesticide Atrazine, and the Marshall Institute, an institute focused on climate change research, and other scientists from the era that associated with those in the Institute). These documents provided evidence for a list of tactics used to generate pro-industry spin and manufacture doubt about conferred harm. We then identified trends among sets of strategies that could explain their differential use or efficacy.

resultsWe recognized 28 unique tactics used to manufacture doubt. Five of these tactics were used by all five organizations, suggesting that they are key features of manufactured doubt. The intended audience influences the strategy used to misinform, and logical fallacies contribute to their efficacy.

conclusionsThis list of tactics can be used by others to build a case that an industry or group is deliberately manipulating information associated with their actions or products. Improved scientific and rhetorical literacy could be used to render them less effective, depending on the audience targeted, and ultimately allow for the protection of both environmental health and public health more generally.

Indexed as

Academies and InstitutesCommunicationDeceptionEnvironmental HealthIndustryPublic HealthCoalHerbicidesHumansInformation DisseminationPesticidesPublic RelationsSugarsCoalHerbicidesPesticidesSugarshyperbolelogical fallacymisrepresentationregulationscientific literacystudy designTobacco Papers

Identifiers

PMID33771171
PMCPMC7996119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.