Statistical Assessment Service

From Powerbase
Revision as of 12:33, 25 February 2010 by Elaine Strachan (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

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]

Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs

Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, 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]

Funding

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 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.[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]

Publications

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] This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS)whom stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.[8] 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."[9] 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. [10] STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.[11]

A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environemental crises that the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.[12] They state that professors, activists and interests groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will influecne public opionion. [13] However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda.

Notes

  1. ↑ STATS, Home page,accessed 20 Febuary 2010
  2. ↑ Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010
  3. ↑ Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[1]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010
  4. ↑ Conservative Transparency[2]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010
  5. ↑ Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal
  6. ↑ James R. Hood[3]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010
  7. ↑ STATS[4]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change' accessed 21 February 2010
  8. ↑ John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader
  9. ↑ Dennis Byrne[5]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010
  10. ↑ Dennis Byrne[6]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010
  11. ↑ John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader
  12. ↑ Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.
  13. ↑ Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&oldid=109506"