Social Issues Research Centre - Revision history

Melissa Jones at 17:21, 12 March 2012

2012-03-12T17:21:02Z

Claire Harkins: /* Other corporate reports */

2012-03-09T19:20:14Z

Other corporate reports

S Ross at 12:38, 15 May 2011

2011-05-15T12:38:37Z

S Ross at 12:37, 15 May 2011

2011-05-15T12:37:26Z

Claire Robinson at 22:07, 1 June 2010

2010-06-01T22:07:34Z

Claire Robinson at 12:27, 27 April 2010

2010-04-27T12:27:27Z

Claire Robinson: /* Guidelines to journalists on how to report science */

2010-03-12T20:09:42Z

Guidelines to journalists on how to report science

Claire Robinson: /* How to report science */

2010-03-12T20:07:44Z

How to report science

Claire Robinson at 20:07, 12 March 2010

2010-03-12T20:07:14Z

Claire Robinson: /* MCM Research */

2010-03-12T20:04:08Z

MCM Research

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ==Freemasons==
-The SIRC were commissioned by the United Grand Lodge of England to produce a report that considers the future of freemasonry. The SIRC are the first non-Masonic or external group has been invited to research the Freemasons.  "The Future of Freemasonry" was commissioned as part of the build-up to the United Grand Lodge of England's tercentenary in 2017.  <ref> Freemasonry Today, 8th March 2012 [http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/ugle-sgc/ugle/item/511-future-of-freemasonry-study-is-published The 'Future of Freemasonry' Report is Published] accessed 9th March 2012</ref>
+The SIRC were commissioned by the United Grand Lodge of England to produce a report that considers the future of freemasonry. The SIRC are the first non-Masonic or external group invited to research the Freemasons.  "The Future of Freemasonry" was commissioned as part of the build-up to the United Grand Lodge of England's tercentenary in 2017.  <ref> Freemasonry Today, 8th March 2012 [http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/ugle-sgc/ugle/item/511-future-of-freemasonry-study-is-published The 'Future of Freemasonry' Report is Published] accessed 9th March 2012</ref>
 ==MCM Research==

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ==Other corporate reports==
 In some cases SIRC does say which corporation has sponsored its reports. [[Ebay]] funded a report on the "ebay generation"<ref>Fox K, SIRC. [http://www.sirc.org/publik/Yeppies.pdf Coming of age in the eBay generation: life-shopping and the new life skills in the age of eBay], Accessed 17 December 2009.</ref>; [[Tio Pepe]], a drinks company, funded one on dinner parties<ref>SIRC. [http://www.sirc.org/publik/Tio_Pepe_Eating-In_Report.pdf The Tio Pepe eating-in study], Accessed 17 December 2009</ref>; the [[Prudential]], an insurance company, one on risk<ref>SIRC. [http://www.sirc.org/publik/risk.shtml Risk!], Accessed 17 December 2009</ref>; and pub chain owner [[Greene King]] on "the local."<ref>SIRC. [http://www.sirc.org/publik/the_local.shtml The enduring appeal of the local], Accessed 17 December 2009.</ref>
 ==MCM Research==

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 ==Links to front groups==
 Another indication of what the SIRC apparently regards as models of sound, evidence-based communication is given by its recommended websites. These include the [[American Council on Science and Health]], which the SIRC says has a "Sensible, balanced approach to a wide range of health issues".<ref>[http://www.sirc.org/links/linkfront.html Worthwhile Links], SIRC website, accessed 10 July 2009</ref> In fact, controversy has raged throughout ACSH's over twenty-year history, focusing particularly on the issue of linkage between its extensive corporate backing (e.g. [[Monsanto]], [[Dow Chemical|Dow]], [[Cyanamid]]) and its tireless crusading against "health scares" and the "toxic terrorists" who promote them.<ref>[http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.1751/pub_detail.asp The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2008], American Council on Science and Health website, December 23, 2008, accessed 10 July 2009</ref>
-Other organisations that SIRC regrs as worthwhile include the [[LM network]] associated [[Sense About Science]] and [[Spiked]].
+Other organisations that SIRC regards as worthwhile include the [[LM network]] associated entities [[Sense About Science]] and [[Spiked]].
 ==Alcohol industry clients==

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 ==Links to front groups==
 Another indication of what the SIRC apparently regards as models of sound, evidence-based communication is given by its recommended websites. These include the [[American Council on Science and Health]], which the SIRC says has a "Sensible, balanced approach to a wide range of health issues".<ref>[http://www.sirc.org/links/linkfront.html Worthwhile Links], SIRC website, accessed 10 July 2009</ref> In fact, controversy has raged throughout ACSH's over twenty-year history, focusing particularly on the issue of linkage between its extensive corporate backing (e.g. [[Monsanto]], [[Dow Chemical|Dow]], [[Cyanamid]]) and its tireless crusading against "health scares" and the "toxic terrorists" who promote them.<ref>[http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.1751/pub_detail.asp The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2008], American Council on Science and Health website, December 23, 2008, accessed 10 July 2009</ref>
 ==Alcohol industry clients==

@@ Line 157: / Line 157: @@
 ==Notes==
 <references/>
-[[Category:Alcohol]][[category:Alcohol Lobby Groups]][[category:Alcohol Front Groups]][[Category:Front Groups]][[Category:GM]][[Category:Corporate Science (GM)]][[Category:GM Lobby Groups]][[Category:LM network]][[Category:Pharma]]
+[[Category:Alcohol]][[category:Alcohol Lobby Groups]][[category:Alcohol Front Groups]][[Category:Front Groups]][[Category:GM]][[Category:Corporate Science (GM)]][[Category:GM Lobby Groups]][[Category:Pharma]]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 ==Guidelines to journalists on how to report science==
-The SIRC set up a Forum to lay down guidelines for journalists and scientists on how they should report science stories in the media. It was co-convened with the [[Royal Institution]] whose director, [[Susan Greenfield]], is also an advisor to the SIRC.  Among those taking part in the Forum were [[Food Standards Agency]] chief Sir [[John Krebs]], [[David Boak]] of the Royal Society, Lord [[Dick Taverne]], and [[Michael Fitzpatrick]] - a stalwart of the [[Living Marxism]] network.
+In 2000 the SIRC set up a Forum to lay down guidelines for journalists and scientists on how they should report science stories in the media. It was co-convened with the [[Royal Institution]], whose director, [[Susan Greenfield]], is also an advisor to the SIRC.  Among those taking part in the Forum were [[Food Standards Agency]] chief Sir [[John Krebs]], [[David Boak]] of the Royal Society, Lord [[Dick Taverne]], and [[Michael Fitzpatrick]] - a stalwart of the [[Living Marxism]] network.
 In September 2000, Guidelines on Science and Health Communication for the media, "Prepared by the Social Issues Research Centre in partnership with the [[Royal Society]] and the [[Royal Institution]] of Great Britain",<ref>[http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.shtml Guidelines on science and health communication], SIRC, November 2001, accessed July 8 2009</ref> were published. These guidelines were later fused with a separate but similar set of advice developed by the [[Royal Society]].

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 According to an article in the BMJ in 1999, MCM’s clients included [[Bass Taverns]], the [[Brewers and Licensed Retail Association]], the [[Cider Industry Council]], the [[Civil Aviation Authority]], [[Conoco]], [[Coral Racing]], [[Grand Metropolitan Retail]], the [[Portman Group]] (jointly funded by [[Bass]], [[Courage]], [[Guinness]], etc), [[Pubmaster]], [[Rank Leisure]], and [[Whitbread Inns]], as well as several Australian brewing concerns and several independent television companies.<ref>Annabel Ferriman, "[http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7211/716 An end to health scares?]", BMJ, 11 September 1999, 319:716</ref>
-==How to report science==
+==Guidelines to journalists on how to report science==
 The SIRC set up a Forum to lay down guidelines for journalists and scientists on how they should report science stories in the media. It was co-convened with the [[Royal Institution]] whose director, [[Susan Greenfield]], is also an advisor to the SIRC.  Among those taking part in the Forum were [[Food Standards Agency]] chief Sir [[John Krebs]], [[David Boak]] of the Royal Society, Lord [[Dick Taverne]], and [[Michael Fitzpatrick]] - a stalwart of the [[Living Marxism]] network.
@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 *Baroness [[Susan Greenfield]] CBE - Director, The [[Royal Institution]] of Great Britain
 *Dr [[David Boak]] - Director of Communications, The [[Royal Society]]
 ==Links to front groups==

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 However, it may be perceived that the company acts more like a public relations agency for the corporations that fund its activities. These include [[Diageo]], [[Flora]], [[Coca-Cola]], [[GlaxoSmithKline]], and [[Roche]], among others.<ref>[SIRC, [http://www.sirc.org/about/funding.html SIRC’s sources of income], Accessed 17 December 2009</ref> Although SIRC does publish this partial list of funders, it is not immediately apparent which company has sponsored which study. And in some instances this information is not included in media reports.<ref>SIRC. [http://www.sirc.org/news/sirc_in_the_news.html SIRC in the news], Accessed 17 December 2009.</ref>
 ==HRT and Big Pharma==
@@ Line 53: / Line 51: @@
 In September 2000, Guidelines on Science and Health Communication for the media, "Prepared by the Social Issues Research Centre in partnership with the [[Royal Society]] and the [[Royal Institution]] of Great Britain",<ref>[http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.shtml Guidelines on science and health communication], SIRC, November 2001, accessed July 8 2009</ref> were published. These guidelines were later fused with a separate but similar set of advice developed by the [[Royal Society]].
-The Guidelines<ref>[http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.shtml Guidelines on science and health communication], SIRC, November 2001, accessed July 8 2009</ref>, say GMWatch's Jonathan Matthews and Dr Maewan Ho of the Institute of Science in Society, focus on how to avoid overstating risk and alarming the public. They have nothing to say about the danger of understating risk, i.e. the kind of false reassurances that go to the heart of the BSE crisis.<ref>Jonathan Matthews and Maewan Ho, [http://ngin.tripod.com/thoughtpolice.htm The New Thought Police], NGIN, 2000, accessed 8 July 2009</ref>
+The Guidelines<ref>SIRC. [http://www.sirc.org/messenger/ Guidelines for scientists on communicating with the media], Accessed 17 December 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.shtml Guidelines on science and health communication], SIRC, November 2001, accessed July 8 2009</ref>, say GMWatch's Jonathan Matthews and Dr Maewan Ho of the Institute of Science in Society, focus on how to avoid overstating risk and alarming the public. They have nothing to say about the danger of understating risk, i.e. the kind of false reassurances that go to the heart of the BSE crisis.<ref>Jonathan Matthews and Maewan Ho, [http://ngin.tripod.com/thoughtpolice.htm The New Thought Police], NGIN, 2000, accessed 8 July 2009</ref>
-The Guidelines, similarly, have little to say about the dangers stemming from conflicts of interest, arising through industry funding of research, etc. This despite a whole series of recent scandals centering on the issue of how commercial interests can undermine free, fair and objective communication about science.
+The Guidelines, similarly, have little to say about the dangers stemming from conflicts of interest, arising through industry funding of research, etc.<ref>[SIRC. [http://www.sirc.org/news/cspi_comments.shtml Response to guidelines on science and health communication from the Center for Science in the Public Interest], Accessed 17 December 2009</ref>  This despite a whole series of recent scandals centering on the issue of how commercial interests can undermine free, fair and objective communication about science.
 In the words of Dr Richard Smith, the editor of the BMJ:

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 Recently, however, MCM has taken a lower profile. Its website now redirects to the SIRC one, and visitors are informed that the centre "has now taken over the task of hosting and publishing reports and materials conducted under the MCM Research name."<ref>SIRC. [http://www.sirc.org/MCM_portal.shtml MCM Portal], Accessed 17 December 2009.</ref>
-Still, SIRC is taken seriously by some in government. It was recently commissioned to produce two independent reviews for an investigation by the Department for Children, Schools and Families of the commercialisation of childhood. The reports, published in late 2009, oppose a public health approach that is based on population level measures, including the restriction of advertising or marketing. The conclusion that SIRC reached is that "the issues involved are very much more complex"<ref>SIRC. [http://www.sirc.org/publik/impact_of_the_commercial_world.shtml The impact of the commercial world on children’s wellbeing: report of an independent assessment], Accessed 31 December 2009</ref> — a position consistent with that advanced by elements of the food and advertising industries.
+==Reports for government==
 ==SIRC and genetic modification (GM)==