Statistical Assessment Service
STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.[1] It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).[2] The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.[3]
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.[4] It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 2005 it received $100,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation which made the foundation STATS’s sole supporter that year.[5] This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.[6]
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.[7] Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."[8]
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.
[9]
Notes
- ↑ STATS[1]accessed 20 Febuary 2010
- ↑ Sourcewatch[2]'Statistical Assessment Service' accessed 21 February 2010
- ↑ Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[3]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010
- ↑ Conservative Transparency[4]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010
- ↑ Sourcewatch[5]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010
- ↑ James R. Hood[6]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010
- ↑ Sourcewatch [7]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010
- ↑ Dennis Byrne[8]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010
- ↑ Dennis Byrne[9]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010
