Social Issues Research Centre

The Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC) calls itself

an independent, non-profit organisation founded to conduct research on social and lifestyle issues, monitor and assess global sociocultural trends and provide new insights on human behaviour and social relations.

It says it

aims to provide a balanced, calm and thoughtful perspective on social issues, promoting open and rational debates based on evidence rather than ideology... SIRC operates a permanent ‘social intelligence’ unit, engaged in continuous monitoring and assessment of significant social, cultural and ideological trends.

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. 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.

HRT and Big Pharma

SIRC is not always transparent about its own funding. For example, it was commissioned by HRT Aware to produce a report that concluded that "well-informed women" taking hormone replacement therapy are "benefiting" and feeling happier, healthier, and sexier. The research received widespread coverage in the broadsheet, tabloid, and broadcast media. Neither the press nor SIRC mentioned that HRT Aware was funded by drug companies, including Janssen-Cilag, Wyeth, Solvay, Servier, Organon, and Novo Nordisk. SIRC mentioned, on the back cover of the report, only that HRT Aware was "industry supported."

SIRC's report for HRT Aware "won a Communique award from the magazine Pharmaceutical Marketing in the public relations and medical education category. SIRC's research linked the improved lives of modern day postmenopausal women to HRT." It led to "widespread - and supportive - media coverage in the UK". The Evening Standard, for instance, ran the headline, "HRT 'leads to better sex and a happy healthy life'".

But, like virtually all the other media coverage of the SIRC report, the article made no mention of the fact that the SIRC's report had been commissioned by a front group for the pharmaceutical industry - HRT Aware - and that it formed part of an industry-fashioned campaign.

Risk

SIRC’s science reporting guidelines focus on the exaggeration of risk by the media but have little to say about risks that may be underplayed by the media. SIRC is sceptical that there is such a thing as an obesity "epidemic," which may fit well with the interests of funders such as Coca-Cola, Cadbury Schweppes, Masterfoods, and the Sugar Bureau. It has coined the term "riskfactorphobia" to suggest that we are too averse to risk, which fits the interests of the food companies as well as the raft of alcohol firms for which SIRC works. None of the reports mentioned in the foregoing paragraph contain information about the source of funding, so it is difficult to tell how "clients" feed into particular activities.

Other corporate reports

In some cases SIRC does say which corporation has sponsored its reports. Ebay funded a report on the "ebay generation"; Tio Pepe, a drinks company, funded one on dinner parties; the Prudential, an insurance company, one on risk; and pub chain owner Greene King on "the local."

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 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.

MCM Research

Although SIRC’s publicity material regularly uses the term "social scientists" to refer to its own staff, it uses the same personnel and office as a commercial market research company, MCM Research. SIRC’s codirectors, Peter Marsh and Kate Fox, work for both organisations. The MCM website used to ask: "Do your PR initiatives sometimes look too much like PR initiatives? MCM conducts social/psychological research on the positive aspects of your business. The results do not read like PR literature, or like market research data. Our reports are credible, interesting and entertaining in their own right. This is why they capture the imagination of the media and your customers."

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."

Reports for government

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" — a position consistent with that advanced by elements of the food and advertising industries.

SIRC and genetic modification (GM)

SIRC claims it seeks to establish a "serious, rational and calm debate" on GM to counteract "deceitful, agenda-driven campaigning". For this reason, says SIRC, it is working "in conjunction with the Royal Institution, to seek a remedy to this dangerous state of affairs." The SIRC, in the words of a profile in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), "fosters the image of an ultraconcerned public spirited group" and of "a heavyweight research body". In fact, it is neither.

As the BMJ notes, "on closer inspection it transpires that this research organisation shares the same offices, directors and leading personnel as a commercial market research company called MCM Research." Both are based at the same Oxford address.

SIRC, MCM and the food and drinks industries

SIRC has received funding from the food and drinks industry (e.g. Bestfoods, the giant US food group now part of Unilever, Kelloggs, Mars), and from its sister organisation MCM Research Ltd, whose clients come from the food, drinks, oil and pharmaceutical industries.

On its website MCM says that it is "well-known for its research aimed at positive communication and PR initiatives".

MCM's website used to be more explicit about what it had to offer:

Do your PR initiatives sometimes look too much like PR initiatives? MCM conducts social/psychological research on the positive aspects of your business... The results do not read like PR literature... Our reports are credible, interesting and entertaining in their own right. This is why they capture the imagination of the media and your customers.

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.

Guidelines to journalists on how to report science

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", were published. These guidelines were later fused with a separate but similar set of advice developed by the Royal Society.

The Guidelines, 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.

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.

In the words of Dr Richard Smith, the editor of the BMJ:

These competing interests are very important. It has quite a profound influence on the conclusions and we deceive ourselves if we think science is wholly impartial.

The BMJ asked SIRC co-director and MCM consultant, Kate Fox, whether she didn't think SIRC faced a conflict of interest in laying down how science should be reported. "No, I don't think so," Fox told the BMJ. "The kinds of work we have done at MCM have been fairly worthy things... They are fairly uncontroversial."

Revealingly, the Forum that drew up the guidelines on science and health reporting, did not include anybody from the BMJ, The Lancet, or the British Medical Association (BMA), all of which have been very alert to the issues surrounding conflict of interest. The BMA has also been cautious over the GM issue. The Lancet published Dr Arpad Pusztai and Prof Stanley Ewen's research showing adverse effects from GM potatoes. Its editor has also been critical of the Royal Society and the tactics it has adopted in its repeated attacks on Dr Pusztai and his research.

However, while The Lancet, the BMJ and the BMA were all absent from the Forum, it managed to include several fairly obscure clinicians, suggesting attitude rather than eminence was the real basis of selection. Forum member Dr Roger Fisken provides a case in point. He first came to public notice with a letter to Private Eye: "Prof. Krebs is right and you are wrong: the whole GM debate in the British media has been a disaster as far as public information is concerned. The experiments carried out by Pusztai were, in scientific terms, a pile of steaming horse-shit."

This savage disparagement of Pusztai's work came from a little-known hospital consultant without a single research publication to his name. Dr Fisken also wrote to The Lancet, furious at its publication of Pusztai and Ewen's paper. In the context of an attack on the views of the Lancet's editor, Fisken bemoaned the failure of scientists to attack the media in general with more vigour, saying, "we as scientists have not been nearly aggressive enough in attacking the scaremongering and sheer nonsense put out by the lay media on a variety of medical and scientific topics."

On the SIRC's website those with opinions differing from the SIRC's on genetic engineering are given short shrift. For his "predictable attack on genetic engineering" during a Reith lecture, the Prince of Wales merits an article entitled, "The madness of Prince Charles". In an SIRC article attacking another contributor to the Reith lectures, the Indian scientist and farmer Dr Vandana Shiva, the SIRC suggests "more appropriate for a Reith lecture than the ramblings of Dr Shiva", when it comes to the plight of Indian farmers, would have been the contribution of right-wing Daily Telegraph columnist Matt Ridley.

The identity of opinion of an organisation which has the Director of the Royal Institution on its Advisory Board and 'Vox Rationis' (voice of reason) as its motto, with a right-wing libertarian such as Ridley, should come as no surprise given that many of the SIRC's complaints about the media coverage of the GM issue bear a marked similarity to ones which have surfaced in the output of those, like Ridley, associated either with the far-right free market think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs or with Living Marxism (LM).

Among those who helped to produce the guidelines on science and health reporting or were consulted by SIRC were:

• The Royal College of General Practitioners - Dr David Haslam
• The Royal Society of Medicine - Dr Jack Tinker
• The Royal College of Surgeons - Mr Barry Jackson, President
• Professor Patrick Bateson FRS - Biological Secretary and Vice-President, The Royal Society
• Peter Bell - Former Editor of Television News and Controller of Programme Policy, BBC
• Dr Michael Clark MP - Chairman, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
• Steve Connor - Science Editor, The Independent
• Dr Graham Easton - GP and Senior Broadcast Journalist, BBC Science Radio
• Dr Roger Fisken - Consultant Physician, Northallerton NHS Trust
• Dr Michael Fitzpatrick - GP, East London
• Philip Harding - Controller of Editorial Policy, BBC
• Dr Roger Highfield - Science Editor, The Daily Telegraph
• Professor Sir John Krebs FRS - University of Oxford
• Professor Sheila McLean - Director, Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine, Glasgow University
• Sir John Maddox FRS - Editor Emeritus, Nature
• Mr Henry Marsh - Consultant Neurosurgeon, Atkinson Morley's Hospital
• Tim Radford - Science Editor, The Guardian
• Lord Dick Taverne QC
• Kate Fox and Dr Peter Marsh - Co-Directors, The Social Issues Research Centre
• Baroness Susan Greenfield CBE - Director, The Royal Institution of Great Britain
• Dr David Boak - Director of Communications, The Royal Society

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". 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, Cyanamid) and its tireless crusading against "health scares" and the "toxic terrorists" who promote them. Other organisations that SIRC regards as worthwhile include the LM network associated entities Sense About Science and Spiked.

Alcohol industry clients

With regard to MCM's many alcohol industry clients, it is worth noting that in the view of Dr Griffith Edwards, editor in chief of the journal Addiction, this is an industry tainted not only by the exploitation of vulnerable populations but by the mounting of attacks on valid research and independent researchers. There is also evidence for the industry's use of front organisations to mount such attacks. Thus, the Portman Group, which presents itself as a drink industry "watch dog", sought to pay academics substantial sums of money to support "an anonymous attack on a report by the World Health Organisation that had documented evidence on the relation between alcohol consumption and drinking problems".

This media and research handling front organisation is on the client list of MCM Research Ltd., SIRC's sister organisation. SIRC director Peter Marsh is on the Board of Trustees of Sense About Science.

Funding

2006

According to SIRC's website (version of February 2006), funding sources as at February 2006 were as follows:

SIRC is a non-profit organisation, funded partly by income from our sister organisation MCM Research, which specialises in applying social science to problems faced in both the commercial and public sectors. Clients include the Ministry of Defence, The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Home Office, the Portman Group, the Civil Aviation Authority, etc.

SIRC receives funding in its own right for research on a wide range of topics, including monitoring and analysis of media coverage of various issues. Recent clients and contributors to continuing programmes include: '3', Alliance and Leicester, BT, Cadbury Schweppes, CBA, Department of Health, Diageo, eBay, Egg, Esure, European Union, Fisher Price, Halifax, Home Office, Kellogg's, Kimberly-Clark, Masterfoods, Mattel, Palm One, Pimms, Renault, Sugar Bureau, Telewest, etc.

2009

According to SIRC's website (version of June 2009), funding sources as at June 2009 were as follows:

'3' | Automobile Association | Alliance and Leicester | BBC Trust | BMW | British Airways | BT | Cadbury Schweppes | Canon | Carphone Warehouse | Children's Mutual | Children's Workforce Development Council (CWDC) | Coca Cola | Department of Health | Diageo | Department for Children | Schools and Families (DCSF) | eBay | Egg | Esure | European Commission | DG Research | Fisher Price | Flora | GSK | Greene King | Friends Provident | Halifax | Hallmark | Home Office | Hudson | Kimberly-Clark | Lloyds TSB | Masterfoods | Mattel | Office of Science and Technology | Palm One | Pimms | Prudential | Rackspace | Renault | Roche | Sugar Bureau | Telewest | Tio Pepe | Wine Trade Action Group

People

Staff

In 2009, SIRC's staff are listed as follows. There is a notable correlation between the SIRC and marketing company MCM Research with Directors and Consultants of the two companies being the one and the same:

• Kate Fox - Director of SIRC. Fox also serves as as a Consultant with marketing firm MCM Research
• Dr. Peter Marsh - Director of SIRC. Marsh also serves as a Managing Director of MCM Research
• Simon Bradley - Director of SIRC. Research Director with MCM Research
• Francesca Kenny - Senior Research Consultant with SIRC. Senior Research Associate with MCM Research

• Patrick Alexander - research associate with SIRC
• Roger Norum - Research Associate at SIRC. Norum has previously served with Goldman Sachs & Co
• Elanor Taylor - consultant researcher and writer. Taylors biography describes her as originaly being from Glasgow, who in 2009 is studying Philosophy at Edinburgh University.
• James Harkin - consultant forecaster with SIRC. Harkin also serves as Director of Talks at the ICA in London and writes for The Financial Times and The Guardian.

Advisors

• Dr Desmond Morris
• Prof. Lionel Tiger - Tiger has previously served the H.F.Guggenheim Foundation; as a Rockefeller Fellow with the Aspen Institute; Chairman of the Working Group on Theories of Military Deterrence and Policy, Director of Net Assessment-Office of the Secretary of Defense with The Pentagon (1991 to 1997)
• Prof. Robin Fox
• Prof. Dwight Heath

• Prof. Susan Greenfield - Greenfield's biography reports that she became Director of The Royal Institution of Great Britain in 1998. It goes on to state that she has been included as one of the 50 most powerful women in Britain by the Guardian and in 1998 received the "Woman of Distinction" award from Jewish Care. She is described as having spoken at a fringe meeting of the Labour Party Conference and as having been invited to the House of Commons and No.10 Downing Street to give talks on science policy.

• Prof. Jeya Henry - Henry, who is a Professor at Oxford Brookes University, also serves the International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition (as Editor-in-Chief), the British Journal of Nutrition (as Editor) and the British Medical Journal (as a Referee). has served on the Board of the Food Standards Agency (2000-2003) and also on secondment to UNICEF. He has served a mulitude of Governmental and other profession roles including: as Governor of British Nutrition Foundation; Member of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food UK (COMA) panel on novel foods; Council Member with the British Nutrition Society; Natural Resources Institute; Member of Overseas Development Administration (ODA) (Now DFID); Nutrition contributor to the BBC World service. His CV lists his Consultancy & Research Activities as including events and other activities with: Department of Trade and Industry (UK); UK Soft Drinks Industry Conference (as a speaker); National Obesity Forum (as a speaker); Annual DiagnOx Dinner (Speaker); Leatherhead Food International; WHO (EMRO) Consultant to Bahrain; Valid International; International Fat Congress; Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council; International Palm Oil Research Congress; Nestle Research Centre; British Council; Wellcome Trust; Ford Foundation; various nutrition Institutes across the globe; and as nutrition advisor to various UK food companies (from 1999 to date) including Kelloggs, Cereal partners, Meat & livestock commission, Weetabix, Heinz, Cadburys, Unilever and Yakult. His biography describes grants and awards in excess of £2million received by him from agencies which includes the Meat and Livestock Commission; Royal Society Award; Ministry of Agriculture; Department for International Development; Gerber Foods; Sugar Bureau; Potato Marketing Board; International Foundation for the Promotion of Nutrition; Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia; Milk Marketing Board; Wellcome Trust; Nutritional Consultative Panel; British Council.

Resources

• David Miller and Marisa de Andrade, "Independent research body or PR agency for corporations? The Social Issues Research Centre, British Medical Journal, March 2010

Contact

Website: http://www.sirc.org/

Address:

Social Issues Research Centre

28 St Clements

Oxford UK

OX4 1AB

Telephone: +44 1865 262255

Fax: +44 1865 793137