Maintained by the ScienceBlogs Overlords, Page 3.14 points you in the direction of some of ScienceBlogs' finest offerings, plus the tastiest tidbits of science news and opinion from around the web.
Yesterday, ScienceBlogs launched Food Frontiers, a blog sponsored by PepsiCo. This isn't the first time we've hosted sponsored blogs--recent ones included GE, Shell, and Invitrogen--but it is the first time we've received this level of criticism about it.
Frankly, we at ScienceBlogs did not do a good job of communicating what these sponsored blogs are for, give a proper explanation of what our relationship to Food Frontiers was going to be, or even properly explain what Food Frontiers is.
We have blogs from industry because we think it's important that the story of how and why industry science gets done be part of the conversation at ScienceBlogs. It's certainly the story of a great many of the world's engineers, mathematicians, chemists, physicists, and biologists. These scientists necessarily have conflicts of interest, so as a matter of transparency, we're fixing the way those conflicts are presented, in line with the best practices of scientific journals.
The profile on the left of the blog used to say "All editorial content on the blog is overseen by ScienceBlogs editors." This didn't really explain anything about our relationship, and was a mistake. We've changed it. To be absolutely clear, we've added this language to Food Frontier's profile, and its equivalent to any sponsored blog that appears on ScienceBlogs:
This blog is sponsored by PepsiCo. All editorial content is written by PepsiCo's scientists or scientists invited by PepsiCo and/or ScienceBlogs. All posts carry a byline above the fold indicating the scientist's affiliation and conflicts of interest.
We've also already asked PepsiCo to change the Food Frontiers banner and logo, and are figuring out how to best implement other graphical and technological changes that will further distinguish these kinds of blogs from those of independent bloggers, so that our readers can fully evaluate the merits of each.
We'll post other updates to how we're handling sponsored blogs as they happen.
UPDATE: Food Frontiers' banner now says "advertorial", and we've made a sponsored-blog-free combined RSS feed. If you're still on the full combined feed, posts coming from advertorial blogs will clearly say so.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Sorry folks, but the tweaks will be insufficient to address the criticism. Corporate PR, whether written by PR agents or written by R&D staff and then vetted by PR agents, does not belong in the center column where editorial content goes. Let them link to their old corporate blog in an ad on the right.
Class M, for one, will not be seesing any new posts until this conflict is addressed.
Posted by: James Hrynyshyn | July 7, 2010 11:57 AM
A few random thoughts:
I'm reminded a little of the huge, multipage 'ads' that ran for Kuwait (and various UAE kingdoms, iirc) in Scienctific American and other mags. THey were very distinct, tended to be content rich but very biased, and annoying because unlike a blog, they could not as easily be ignored.
ON the other end of the spectrum, we have blogs written by scientists (or whatever) acting independently.
Somewhere in the middle are blogs written by scientists at MRU's who are mostly funded by some major single source (NIH, Big Pharm, ... maybe even Pepsico???) but who, since they are either indy or pseudo, are different than a corporate sponsored blog.
Scientists who work at research wings of major corps do a huge percentage of the research being done in certain areas of science. This is probably true of food science.
I do want to know why there is such a strong reaction to this blog but not so for the Shell and GE sponsored blogs. I suppose part of this is that those blogs had Sblings as co-bloggers. But is there something else?
The reactions by Sblings are a good thing ... we need to be reactive in this way. But we also now have a blog with colleagues writing for it; The new blog has actual people with actual names and actual careers who will write about actual science and stuff. I think we should welcome them and eagerly read what they write. It could be very interesting stuff.
If they turn out to be corporate shills we can slay them later.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 7, 2010 11:57 AM
Linked this post in the comment thread about this issue on Consumerist blog.
Greg, they can't help but be corporate shills. They have a legal and moral duty to be corporate shills while on the job, and Food Frontiers is part of their job. They cannot post as an objective person would do.
If the company I worked for decided to do the same thing as PepsiCo, it would be slightly more legitimate; after all we really are engaged in relevant scientific research in metallurgy, elastomer chemistry, oilfield geology, and so forth (BTW, I do NOT work for any of the three companies responsible for the BP disaster). But if I contributed to that blog, which actually would be somewhat appropriate given my job description, it would be as a corporate representative, accountable to the company I work for.
As I mentioned at Pharyngula, the company is not accountable, ultimately, to the scientific community. It is accountable only to its shareholders and to applicable regulations.
Posted by: speedwell | July 7, 2010 12:14 PM
It's true that no small amount of R&D comes from corporate entities. Of course, that's partly because public funding for research has gone all to hell, leaving us to rely on for profit enterprises to direct funding with the goal of making scads of money, at the expense of the very basic research that has built the fundamental understandings for the more profitable ideas.
I'm not naive, and I know a great many fine researchers work for all sorts of companies and do all sorts of solid work. But there's a big difference between welcoming science discussion from researchers in industry and putting up a space that seems to be essentially PR-driven company propaganda.
Lame, I say.
Posted by: spit | July 7, 2010 12:17 PM
Greg, the reason I didn't scream bloody murder about GE and Shell is that I wasn't here for Shell and I missed the GE thing getting settled here. So yesh, I didn't do enough background work before I joined Science blogs. Mea Culpa.
On the other hand, we've noticed this one - I don't really grasp how you and the overlords think that because people didn't complain *enough* about GE, that makes it totally awesome that Pepsi has a blog here - talk about a poor argument.
The issue for me is that this undermines my personal credibility - I know for a fact that I will walk into every room I speak in about food and food systems and someone will say "but don't you write for those people who front Pepsi's corporate blog?" And they will be right to say so.
This is not enough. You want to have corporate blogs, put them in a ghetto - they go to scienceblogscorporate, with a separate feed, and very clear logos that identify both affiliation and the fact that this is not the same as individuals writing who happen to work in industry - this is people who are writing *for* their masters.
Sharon
Posted by: Sharon Astyk | July 7, 2010 12:28 PM
You guys have screwed the pooch. Please reverse this decision. When I want to hear what industry has to say I go to their websites. You guys have screwed the pooch.
Posted by: Robert Estrada | July 7, 2010 12:45 PM
Let the actual scientists blog while you lot either sell more advertising, or figure out some much better ways to earn money from your virtual properties.
There are plenty of ways to rake in the cash without "selling out" like this.
Posted by: Synchronium | July 7, 2010 1:03 PM
Why not just call it an "advertorial" with big bold letters?
Or nix the whole deal altogether. Your credibility is damaged. Good luck restoring it.
Oh, and when i drink soda, i drink the kind made with real sugar, not HFCS.
Posted by: nffcnnr | July 7, 2010 1:09 PM
As a reader I'm disappointed at how the Pepsico blog was rolled out. If this is a paid blog it needs to say so directly and clearly. And it should have said it vividly the second it was up.
That said, I think it should stay. ScienceBlogs should have room for single individuals, research institutions and corporate entities. All are linked to each other through a vast web of funding, education and resources. Even if some people claim purity in their bubbles.
That said, these three categories should be separate in the navigation and the blog description NEEDS to say when a space is purchased. Like the "paid advertisement" note in magazines. "sponsored by" is not the same as saying "paid for by". Other spaces can and should be purchased for the use of other corporate departments. Or at the very least it should be made clear that the words "Sponsored by" in any blog means "paid for by".
I also wonder if ScienceBlogs needs to change it's navigation for clarity and ease of use. The PepsiCo blog and other Corporate blogs like it could be separated in the navigation. Individuals, Institutes and Corporate Entities could all be grouped separately. Maybe have another category for Non-Profits if there are any. Make it CLEAR that there is a difference between these voices, because while PepsiCo might not think there is, there most definitely is.
That said, all writers on ScienceBlogs should also be required to publish their associations, affiliations, grants, bylines, conflicts of interest and funding sources.
So if ScienceBlogs is going this corporate platform route it sounds like you might need to update your platform to accommodate publishing these different voices into one basket. Like color coded templates to start with and a revamp of the navigation, categories and feeds.
So yes, at the moment this does smack of advertising and public relations shenanigans. It did not help that the blog was clumsily rolled out.
But the content, no doubt, will be interesting to read. Much in the same way it is interesting to read about the latest DOD technology or Monsanto initiatives. Interesting but you always know that there is much more than meets the eye. Such is the nature of the beast.
Also, as a side note, some people have noted that they are OK with the adverts because they don't even see them any more, ignore them or block them. Think about it readers, maybe that is why ScienceBlogs felt the dire need to once again use this revenue stream?
All that blogging stuff aside, I can't help but wonder, in general, what the future of food production holds.
A strong chorus demands that these multi-nationals like Pepsico, Nestle, Kraft etc step up to the plate and take responsibility of their junk and what this junk is doing to the people that subsist on it. The chorus demands, rightly so, that they need to take responsibility for their methods of production and what they are doing to the environment and the political, economic and social balance of the regions they operate in.
The chorus seeks the availability of nutritionally sound and affordable food as well as political and social freedom yet these global players will never step aside and give up control of their positions and profits.
So it all comes down to control. Control they already have in R&D, sourcing, production, funding and distribution. I think that the chorus will get their demands met by the very same players that are causing them to sing right now, yet in return… I wonder what sorts of controls will be put into place onto the populations. Science and new technologies used not in a vacuum but by people will be the key to how all this unfolds.
Science is a tool used for the purpose of the user. Unlike what the ethicists say, it has no morals. PepsiCo uses science for it's own purposes. So let them tell us all about it in their own corporate language. Read their words, read between their words. Think critically about it all.
Isn't that what we should do to all science related writing no matter what the platform or agenda?
Posted by: Maria | July 7, 2010 1:10 PM
I don't really grasp how you and the overlords think that because people didn't complain *enough* about GE, that makes it totally awesome that Pepsi has a blog here
That is, frankly, and disappointingly, the dumbest thing I've read all day. Your personal credibility is based on more things than the blogs, ads, and other stuff that you share a network with. Stuffing straw-man arguments in other people's mouths has something to do with that as well.
You want to have corporate blogs, put them in a ghetto - they go to scienceblogscorporate, with a separate feed,
I am less inclined than you to use the word "ghetto" or to assume that all corporate paid scientists are evil (correct me if I'm wrong that you are making this assumption) but, as I have suggested elsewhere, something like what you are saying could be appropriate.
This is a wheel already invented. The print media has this sort of thing already, and it can be adapted.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 7, 2010 1:19 PM
Maria, you're missing the point. We are not cutting PepsiCo off from their right to free speech by attempting to deny them a foothold in ScienceBlogs. They are a large corporation and they can bribe their way into any forum where the administrators can be bought off. This is simply not the place for self-serving propaganda.
Posted by: speedwell | July 7, 2010 1:19 PM
This is a bad joke. What self-respecting scientist would want to write on a site that does things like this. Go back to Wordpress and stay honest.
Posted by: David Colquhoun | July 7, 2010 1:20 PM
How much $$ will Pepsico be paying ScienceBlogs for their advertising?
Just curious.
Posted by: chaz | July 7, 2010 1:27 PM
speedwell. While I said a lot (maybe too much) in my initial comment no place did I say anyone is cutting off PepsiCo's right to free speech.
I'm not sure how one could interpret any of my words to mean that or anything even remotely close to that. I even mentioned this all feels like public relations shenanigans.
I'm not missing the point. People are quite directly saying corporate blogs don't have a place on ScienceBlogs because it's all propaganda. That is quite a powerful word that doesn't deserve to be watered down by what this is. ScienceBlogs is a media venture, Seed Media is a corporation.
My point is that all research groups, corporate or institutional should have a place here as long as they are defined and identified as such and that there is no question as to who they are and how they have come to be here. This can work only as long as ScienceBlogs is transparent about all the relationships including the financial ones. And in fact, i think they bumbled the roll out on this. And finally it only works as long as the corporate entity or research institution has something to post that is in fact relevant to the science they engage in and not just an advertisement or a call for donations.
PepsiCo is of course doing this to give itself a legitimate sheen. Yet for all that can be said about multinationals and corporations, they really -do- engage in scientific research and development. For their own purposes yes, but it's still science.
Posted by: Maria | July 7, 2010 1:59 PM
Yes, credibility is based on more than who I share a site with - but it is also affected by these things. This is not rocket science, and though I did not go to Harvard (although I sleep nightly with someone who did, do I get points for that ;-)), I don't think observing so is irrelevant. I get an awesome degree of credibility from all you brilliant people. I also get some of my own credibility from where the money comes from, and what my media company seems to be into. This matters to me. What it seems to me is that issues that ought to have been raised more acutely with the GE and Shell blogs are now being raised. This is good, not bad.
I didn't say they were evil. I didn't say you were evil. You seem to be talking past me. What I do think is that there is an important distinction between an individual scientist with a blog, regardless of where they work, and a corporate blog, with policies and writing issues that can't possibly be transparent. And no, it doesn't take a genius to come out with how this would work.
I find it kind of strange that with all the media attention this is getting, you don't see how this could affect anyone's credibility, though.
Sharon
Posted by: Sharon Astyk | July 7, 2010 2:58 PM
there is an important distinction between an individual scientist with a blog, regardless of where they work, and a corporate blog, with policies and writing issues that can't possibly be transparent.
I do agree that this affects credibility. But, truthfully, there are credibility issues other than this that we tend to ignore.
But there is not doubt at all that corporate blogs should be identified as such and their posts not feed to the same feed as the google newsfeed.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 7, 2010 3:03 PM
Evan Lerner:
Well, not so far, no. You put up the first post. Time to correct your byline so that it describes your financial interest in the Pepsico deal.
Also, the food frontiers blog over at Pepsico, of which SB is now hosting an extension, has comment submission forms but hasn't actually allowed comments on any of its posts. Which is perfectly reasonable for a PR device, but Scienceblogs has the "mission of hosting and spurring the world's conversation about science.", and commentary makes the conversation. I see comments have been enabled at the SB Food Frontiers extension, but will the pepsico and visiting scientists be expected to defend their posts and engage with commenters, or will this be primarily a "hit and run" blog?
I look forward to your response - in the byline and in the comments section of your post over at the Food Frontiers blog.
Posted by: hibob | July 7, 2010 3:07 PM
I just saw a link to a more detailed letter at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/07/scienceblogs-blogging-pepsi-bly-letter
Bly's letter gets at some key points, but is still flawed.
One big complaint is that he doesn't acknowledge that there have been very public ethics discussions regarding the Atlantic Ideas Festival and The New Yorker Festival. To say these are accepted as common practice is false.
My other big complaint is that he has a list of good questions regarding how to distinguish this content from the non-paid content. From the managerial perspective, these should have been asked long ago and not as part of a post-disaster cleanup. The fact that these weren't considered earlier speaks very poorly regarding the Seed management.
As I've mentioned in comments in other blogs, Bly discusses posting deals with CERN and HHMI, but he isn't transparent about the mechanics behind them. These could also be ethically fraught since they are run through public relations offices and it's unclear if any or all are paying Seed. I see the main issue as mixing sponsored content with unsponsored content without disclosure. For that issue, the name of the sponsor is irrelevant.
The letter definitely sounds like some of the science festival blogs hosted on scienceblogs might be paying for hosting so that question regarding who pays isn't trivial.
The other big question is whether there will be more oversight of these sponsored projects than individual blogs. I don't doubt that I food scientist working at pepsico can contribute to this community. The question is who decides what's a contribution and want is using this site to push press releases or intentionally biased stories into the conversation on a trusted website. I'm not saying this will happen, but not having clear, transparent oversight and content policies on sponsored blogs is a recipe for much bigger headaches in the future.
As for thinking towards the future, another question is who gets to decide who is a serious voice in science? In this case, it was clearly left to a few editors since none of the bloggers seemed to know in advance. That seems like a really bad idea.
Posted by: bsci | July 7, 2010 3:25 PM
As a casual reader, ScienceBlogs to me is like a local food fair - artisans come together to display their wares. If I want to buy shrink wrapped cheese, I can wait for the stalls to be put away and then go to the supermarket next door.
I wasn't aware of other sponsored blogs and the fact that they exist doesn't alter my opinion on this.
Pepsi are paying for the space here because they value the aura of 'scienciness' that the existing bloggers provide. I.e. truth-will-out philosophy, openness, honesty, free comment.
When writing on the PepsiCo blog, the authors as employees of Pepsi Inc have a duty to their employer first and everything else, be that science, ScienceBlogs, the reader, or the truth, second.
(Equally, by receiving significant amounts of money from Pepsi, the ScienceBlogs management will automatically and necessarily be swayed in certain matters by whether Pepsi would approve.)
The authors _may_ try very hard to be honest, fair, interesting etc. but as a casual reader I cannot trust a word they say.
Seriously! AFAICT any sentence could be incorrect because the PR department would not allow the accurate version of that sentence to be published.
Every paragraph could completely overlook a massive contradictory body of evidence.
Every explanation of why they considered X instead of Y, may omit the fact that Y is $0.0002 more expensive per Kg.
But wait, you cry, if this were so the comments would be full of detailed corrections and rebuttals.
The comments are moderated by Pepsi. In PepsiLand no one can hear you scream 'PR'.
Posted by: Felix | July 7, 2010 3:30 PM
If you want to know about food, you really need to consult a food scientist. Where do you think food scientists work, Kmart?
No, they work in the food industry or as an academic researcher at the university level.
Now these scientists don't JUST work for PepsiCo, the average food science professional switches employers 3-5 times in their career. Given that, they need to ensure that what they submit is factually accurate. It would be ridiculous for a food scientist to skew research because of their present employer when it would hamper their ability to work for future employers.
It's a good idea to be transparent about the blog's sponsorship, but you guys shouldn't assume that anything in those blogs is going to be a lie.
I wish I had a sponsor, and I'd seriously consider all offers, but a sponsorship doesn't change fundamental facts about food science.
Posted by: Sam Vance | July 7, 2010 4:27 PM
Not obviously related to this fiasco, but posted here on the off-chance of attention from the Seed Overlords: there appears to be an under-representation of the Dismal Science at ScienceBlogs. Perhaps they might wish to seek out a young economist or three to start blogs?
Posted by: abb3w | July 7, 2010 4:42 PM
As another casual reader, my take on this isn't that Pepsico scientists can't provide valuable accurate research. I seem to recall scientists working for AT&T's Bell Labs making some minor contributions to the scientific community in the past. (And IT people will always remember the contributions of Xerox scientists with great respect.)
The core problem for me is an issue of branding of the ScienceBlogs name. What attracted me to this set of blogs was the individual scientists and not who they worked for. I read Pharyngula because of PZ Meyers, not because of his association with UMM. If UMM were to sponsor a blog here I would expect it to be very different and I would not be as interested in it.
If Dr. Mehmood Khan were to start a blog here I would be very interested despite his association with Pepsico. (I would assume he would make any conflicts of interest clear in any posts.) I am not interested in a blog by Pepsico even if it includes articles by Dr. Khan. These would be two very different blogs.
To me, at least, ScienceBlogs was a place for scientists to post about and discuss topics. If it becomes a place for organizations (corporations, universities, etc.) to post articles, then the focus is something I neither expected nor desire to see in the future.
Perhaps there is room for corporate entities here, but I would tend to think that there needs to be a very clear demarcation from the individuals who post here as well. Without that clear line the ScienceBlogs brand will be diluted.
Perhaps a separate blog with a separate name would be better, but, of course, Pepsico wouldn't pay as much for that. They want the legitimacy that the ScienceBlogs brand brings. Just remember that the brand was built with individuals and not with corporate entities.
The credibility argument is also a concern even as a reader. I often send links to articles here to help convince people about the validity of science-based approaches in subjects, for example, such as vaccinations. If the brand image of SciencBlogs changes, I would not be able to do so anymore.
A brand is a valuable asset and it is tempting to use it for short-term monetary gain. The fact the brand is now valuable, however, also means it needs to be protected and altered only with careful review.
Posted by: Ken | July 7, 2010 5:09 PM
Ken@22: I suspect you may find that the "scienceblogs" brand was valuable until a couple of days ago. The webternet is a marvellous way of passing information around quickly, and reputations for trustworthiness are much easier to destroy than to build, never mind rebuild (ask any disgraced politician). I just hope it doesn't impact unfairly on the many excellent bloggers who helped build that reputation in the first place.
Speaking personally, as a long-term reader of many blogs here, I agree with those sciencebloggers who regard this as qualitatively different from previous sponsored blogs, and fundamentally a step too far. I'll be doing my best to follow them all in their new homes, and regretting the loss of a convenient place that brought them all together.
Posted by: Chrisj | July 7, 2010 5:37 PM
So how would it be different if it were RJ Reynolds Co. sponsoring Sb™ and their scientists blog about agricultural science & technology and perhaps a thread or two on improving cardiopulmonary health or oral and lung cancers? Yes, of course they want to usher in a new healthy, green future - while making the bulk of their profit selling products that counter all that.
One thing is for sure: I'm sure there would be some contrarian(or puppet) arguing that there is no definitive link between the use of tobacco and cancer just as some idiot going by the moniker Daedalus keeps posting that there is no proof of sugar causing obesity/health problems on the Food Frontier thread.
As a PR venture, PepsiCo and Seed win the award for greatest tone deafness in cognitive dissonance. Congratulations.
Posted by: E.V. | July 7, 2010 7:05 PM
When is the Monsanto scienceblog coming? I can't wait to read about the wonders and benefits of Roundup.
Posted by: JafafaHots | July 7, 2010 7:25 PM
So what is PepsiCo doing here, except borrowing ScienceBlogs' credibility? I mean, they're a huge transnational corporation with more money than Croesus; they can afford to put up their own blog elsewhere on their own corporate site, or create any number of greenwashy "experiential marketing" sites to put their stuff on. It just sort of seems like a Brobdinagian wanting to be invited to the Lilliputian Annual Picnic so he can eat all the free food.
Do they really expect that just because PZ and Orac and various of the other Sciblings get a lot of traffic that will translate to a lot of traffic for them? Well, maybe if the Pharynguloid hordes and the Respectfully Insolent decide to go all Sadly, No! on them and show up to point, laugh, and catcall, except I hear they are much like many right-wing and/or corporate blogs and moderate like crazy...
Posted by: Interrobang | July 8, 2010 12:07 AM
That Pepsicon is moderating comments seems a bad thing. I'm not sure how it is going to benefit them - if someone says something defamatory, how much simpler would it be to provide correct, accurate information, thereby ensuring their transparency and openness, and making sure there is no ill-will from their bloggers?
As far as I go, I'll continue to read ScienceBlogs, as long the bloggers I follow stay here. However, there seems to be the beginnings of a mass exodus. So I guess the ball is in ScienceBlogs court: Do they want to lose the very people who make this business a success, or do they want whatever money Pepsi is providing and no business at all?
Posted by: Samantha | July 8, 2010 4:59 AM
Evan,
At its worst, the Pepsico blog is deceptive. And even if you addressed all of the disclosure problems, it would remain pollutive noise. Your arguments about what industry scientists have to contribute to the science blogosphere are undermined by the incentive structure of such a setup. What you really want is the individual scientists blogging on their own without oversight. This is not it.
There is no reasonable justification for allowing this blog to continue.
Posted by: bsk | July 8, 2010 7:32 AM
What is found on the current pepiscoblog.com version of Food Frontiers:
http://foodfrontiers.pepsicoblogs.com/
Posted by: ponderingfool | July 8, 2010 7:53 AM
You can justify all you want, and try to back-pedal and weasel your way out of this, but I have just two words for you.
EPIC FAIL.
'Nuff said...
(Love the moderation of comments on the Pepsi blog, by the way. Very Orwellian. Nice job...)
Posted by: Kami | July 8, 2010 10:39 AM
I noticed that the Food Frontiers blog is gone, says page not found.
I sincerely hope it stays that way. An apology would be in order, and a promise you will never again attempt such a thing.
Posted by: sim | July 8, 2010 6:30 PM