…and this is a 
The case of the various kinds of blogs hosted on ScienceBlogs has come up on Newsweek, and I get quoted trying to explain how I'm unperturbed by a couple of institutional blogs here.
Not all bloggers feel this way, Myers included. "We've known about those [institutional blogs] for some time--they aren't a problem," he wrote in an e-mail to NEWSWEEK. "Those sites were set up under the same conditions as the blogs of corporate scientist Mark Chu-Carroll, who works at Google, and university scientist PZ Myers, who works at the University of Minnesota. ... [The Pepsi blog blurred] the boundary between advertising and content. I agree that the institutional blogs also blur that boundary, just not quite as much. I can't insist that their blogs be labeled as advertisements, unless I want my blog marked as an ad for the University of Minnesota, or Chu-Carroll's as an ad for Google. It's complicated and messy."
There is some confusion out there, however. I do not claim to represent the University of Minnesota. Mark Chu-Carroll did not claim to speak for Google. My point was that if you take any blogger and look at the chains of affiliations they have (as we all do), we do not try to argue that every possible connection is a direct conflict of interest that demands a prominent disclaimer on the web page.
We ought to reserve the term "ad" for situations where an interest has paid money to be promoted, as PepsiCo did. The Weizmann Institute did not. Google did not pay to have Chu-Carroll peddle the company line, and he didn't. The University of Minnesota did not pay to have me scare away recruit potential students, although I may have done one or the other, accidentally. Weizmann, SETI, and Brookhaven have that in common with me and Chu-Carroll, and none of us cross the ethical barrier in the same way that PepsiCo did.
I actually think it's a good idea for institutions to have blogs at places like Scienceblogs. One thing I mentioned (but was not quoted) in my email to Newsweek is that the real challenge for institutional blogs is for them to be interesting. I rather like this quote from Carl Zimmer that summarizes their problem:
I do not, for example, assume that a piece of research is actually important just because a press release says it is. Imagine a press release with the headline, "Minor study published that is really not all it claims to be." Such things just don't exist.
Comments
Posted by: Dr Van Nostrand
|
July 26, 2010 6:15 PM
Sounds like the title of an article that should be in The Onion.
Posted by: Marella
|
July 26, 2010 6:23 PM
In what way is PepsiCo a scientific organization? I suspect their main goal was to get in the way of the idea of taxing soda. There isn't a lot of science done on this yet but it's gaining traction and the soft drink industry hates it. They will have been hoping to point out the inadequacies of what science has been done and report on their own no doubt showing that taxing soda won't help thin the west down.
I think sugar should be taxed not just soda, in the same way as alcohol and cigarettes have been. Of course the soft drinks industry has a huge amount of money they can spend telling us all it's a conspiracy to ruin our lives!
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
July 26, 2010 6:37 PM
Marella, the problem with that is sugar occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables. Would you tax an orange or an apple for the sugar content? How about orange juice with no added sugar?
Posted by: jeffery.g.davis
|
July 26, 2010 6:40 PM
It seems to me that if Scienceblogs wants to include PepsiCo and receive a windfall for it, they are perfectly welcome to do so, they just need to rename the site.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
July 26, 2010 6:45 PM
ERV's increasingly-difficult-produce-enough-doubt-to-give-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-on-being-anything-other-than-pure-attention-whoring notwithstanding...
Posted by: richardrob
|
July 26, 2010 6:54 PM
Man, I would totaly read about a study with the headline, "Minor study has subtle implications for esoteric field of science."
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
July 26, 2010 6:59 PM
Uh, I'm confused. Did you refer to yourself in third person while emailing Newsweek or did they fuck up/misattribute the quote? This bit specifically: "Those sites were set up under the same conditions as the blogs of corporate scientist Mark Chu-Carroll, who works at Google, and university scientist PZ Myers, who works at the University of Minnesota." Or am I reading that wrong?
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 26, 2010 7:20 PM
The usual journalistic excellence. Trying to make a gigantic conflict of interest and a minor conflict of interest equivalent.
That's how you know real star journalism -- when they can find equivalence between any distinction.
Posted by: ERV
|
July 26, 2010 7:45 PM
Step one would be providing an actual argument against my stance, instead of name-calling.
Lots of us were having a nice conversation on a comment thread you posted on, apparently not having read any of the comments...
Posted by: Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy
|
July 26, 2010 8:45 PM
Down with this sort of thing.
Posted by: jcwelch
|
July 26, 2010 8:52 PM
From the outside world, relentless idiots like Mooney and Kirshbaum(sp? Can't stand either of them, so who the fuck really cares) being lumped in with PZ et al do FAR more damage to reputations than Pepsi ever could have.
People at least know Pepsi's a faceless $BIGCORP. The other two are technically "scientists, just like PZ..."
only stupider.
Posted by: Noddin
|
July 26, 2010 9:01 PM
Today I load up this blog and added it to my bookmark list. When I come to your blog I find interesting posts and statements from the community.
Congratulations for being featured in News Week magazine. What can I do to help you? I will be coming back later to read your comments. I would be happy to stand behind your words.
The issue at Science Blogs was complicated. When I first read that it was over I felt nothing but relief. I do not care about this community, but it made me think of it. I try to be a better person.
I hope everyone here is happy to see this blog featured on a large magazine. I appreciate it. In the end, you might not win, however.
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 26, 2010 9:52 PM
jcwelch | July 26, 2010 8:52 PM:
Mooney has never claimed to be a scientist. He claims only to be a science reporter. "Sheril Kirshenbaum is a research scientist with the Webber Energy Group at the University of Texas at Austin's Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy ". The last four articles listed on her articles page were peer-reviewed, as far as I can tell.
(She has aided and abetted Mooney's egregious mis-representation of PZ Myers and other affirmative atheists, but that does not make her a non-scientist.)
Posted by: Mary Carmichael
|
July 26, 2010 10:09 PM
A. Noyd, I'm the author of the article. PZ did refer to himself in the third person (I simply cut and pasted from his email), which I found charming. I'm happy to post his entire email here if he gives me permission -- or, of course, he can post it himself -- so you can see the full context of his arguments.
As for PZ's point that the challenge for institutional blogs is to be interesting -- yes, that's the challenge for all of us who write for a living! And I couldn't agree more that the Zimmer quote gets right to that point. That's why it's in my piece.
Posted by: prosfilaes
|
July 26, 2010 10:16 PM
If we just stopped subsidizing the production of corn, it would go some distance to changing what goes into what we eat and drink.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
July 26, 2010 10:31 PM
Mary Carmichael (#14)
Nah, I believe you. It just came off a bit odd. Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: Mary Carmichael
|
July 26, 2010 11:30 PM
Well, PZ did give the OK, so I'll post his whole email here anyway. Nothing the man writes ought to go unpublished. Here it is:
--
Yes, we've known about those for some time -- they aren't a problem. Scienceblogs wants a diverse sample of different kinds of science promotion, and that includes corporate science and research institutions. Those sites were set up under the same conditions as the blogs of corporate scientist Mark Chu-Carroll, who works at Google, and university scientist PZ Myers, who works at the University of Minnesota. Of course, one other reason I'm not concerned about those institutional blogs is that they're generally run by PR people, are vetted to be about as flavorful as stale oatmeal, and are pretty darned boring.
The PepsiCo blog was significantly different. Once we found out about it, we looked at the previous iteration of the blog that was hosted on Pepsi's own site, and found it was also really boring, and wasn't going to get much attention...but it was also established under different circumstances, with Pepsi paying for the privilege of using our site. That made it nothing but a blatant ad, masquerading as an independent blog written by corporate scientists. That crosses a line. That blurs the boundary between advertising and content.
I agree that the institutional blogs also blur that boundary, just not quite as much. I can't insist that their blogs be labeled as advertisements, unless I want my blog marked as an ad for the University of Minnesota, or Chu-Carrol's as an ad for Google. It's complicated and messy.
I can say that one of the things I'm hoping for from Seed is that the bloggers will be able to have more input into the choices for new blogs. We'd have squashed Pepsi instantly -- paying to get in disrupts the meritocracy we'd like to have at Scienceblogs. Those institutional blogs might not have gotten our approval either, but not because there is an ethical conflict...but because an interesting blog needs an interesting personality and a personal take on the science, and for the most part, they just don't have it. Like you say, Kendra at the Brookhaven blog does a good job of making the PR relevant and personal and well-written, so there would be exceptions.
Posted by: Chuck C
|
July 27, 2010 12:21 AM
Far more important is the fact the UMM and Google, respectively, do not attempt to control what you post. I think that is a significant distinction.Posted by: Dr Van Nostrand
|
July 27, 2010 1:55 AM
@llewelly #13
Webber's group at UT does good work. He and I actually had the same grad adviser, and I've followed some of the stuff he's done. I find it a little depressing that Kirshenbaum works for him.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkaiK0r660Vg7y5Ro8bZxaayBGdTzGNor8
|
July 27, 2010 2:14 AM
I agree with PZ that the issue here is money. If I'm being paid to write something then I'm likely to work hard to get the point across I'm being being paid to make and make it seem like a fact. But if I'm writing out of my own free will simply because I happen to love a company then my writing will be an opinion and can be rightly criticised as such.
PepsiCo clearly have no right paying to own a scienceblog. If they have important science to share they should be able to do so without having to pay for the privilege
Posted by: MadScientist
|
July 27, 2010 7:17 AM
I just don't see what all the fuss is about. People (and corporations) will try anything on, from "bending the rules" to outright breaking the law and hoping to not get caught. Give 'em a spanking and get on with things - there's no Great Conspiracy - it's just folks being dicks as always. You might count the Pepsi blog as just another of the gazillion woo blogs out there. Personally I think it would have been more fun to blog about the Pepsi blogs and about how it's all woo-woo, then expose the real story later. In some places what Pepsi did would be breaking the law though - passing off ads as if they were public interest stories - but as far as I know no one had ever been convicted under such laws ...
Posted by: MadScientist
|
July 27, 2010 7:20 AM
@truthspeaker #3: I'd be all for more taxes on orange juice with added sugar - too many things are too damned sweet these days because folks are getting silly and putting mountains of sugar into everything.
Posted by: normandrogers
|
July 27, 2010 7:25 AM
Well, kudos to you for trying to stand up to the marketing people and their institutional bias against common ethical standards (or some such thing).
Even though I have my own site, registered through GoDaddy and hosted at Squarespace, I decided to take the Mommy Blogger pledge a while back and it has served as a very useful guide for me.
http://www.blogwithintegrity.com/
I would encourage everyone to stop and consider becoming a "Mommy Blogger" even if they are not a mommy and not much of a blogger. They spell out the guidelines as to how you wish to proceed and they have a wonderful button you can put on your own website. Whenever someone asks me to do something particularly disdainful, evil, or illegal, I shrug and point to my Mommy Blogger status. Sure, it has cost me money. But who cares? Money, I can embezzle if need be, from my family. Ethics and integrity are everything. I shall not part with them, unless the fit hits the shan.
It's a bit like becoming a Knights Templar, a Jedi Knight, or a member of the Knights of Columbus--you can never quit and you can never forget what you're supposed to uphold.
Posted by: Nancy New
|
July 27, 2010 7:45 AM
to #3...
Marella, the problem with that is sugar occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables. Would you tax an orange or an apple for the sugar content? How about orange juice with no added sugar?"
Generally speaking, the "tax sugar" information I've seen is referring to taxing High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Posted by: ctroein.myopenid.com
|
July 27, 2010 9:34 AM
Considering that modern fruit varieties can be ridiculously high in sugar, it would make some sort of sense to tax sugar regardless of its origin. In reality it would hardly be feasible to tax based on actual contents, and in any case it would be difficult to eat so much fresh fruit that the bad would outweigh the good (except maybe with grapes?). I imagine that dried fruit would also be excluded, even though it can be mostly sugar. I also wonder if a tax of HFCS would have much effect without a tax on cane and beet sugar, unless the idea is just to raise the price back to their level. Then there's talk about simply taxing sugary non-juice drinks, which might be enough to get the consumption down.Posted by: jerry.franz
|
July 27, 2010 10:03 AM
I would limit it to foods where the primary ingredient, other than water, is sugar.
The ingredient breakdown of non-diet soda is essentially this: Water, sugar, small amounts of flavoring and coloring.
Yah. It's basically carbonated sugar water. Really it is 'liquid candy'.
As for the argument that fruit juices should be exempt - they have more net sugar content than soda. They are liquid candy pretending to be healthy...
Posted by: flaming liberal
|
July 27, 2010 3:15 PM
As long as you don't tax my Diet Coke/Coke light.
I doubt that people eating too much fruits will become a problem. At least in unprocessed form, most are too inconvenient.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 27, 2010 4:55 PM
The wish to tax sugar is as back-asswards as the EU's simultaneous funding for anti-tobacco campaigns and subsidies for EU tobacco farmers.
Drop subsidies for corn syrup in the US and beet sugar in the EU, and let the market (ZOMG!) sort things out. As it is, 'poorer countries' can't export their cane sugar to the EU because subsidised beet undercuts the prices.
If there's still a problem afterwards, we can start looking at taxes.