Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
168. sirc.org is an industry front group (Social Issues Research Centre)
Thu May 8, 2014, 10:44 PM
May 2014
"Do your PR initiatives sometimes look too much like PR initiatives?" asked MCM's website in a straightforward boast of its ability to deceive the public.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Social_Issues_Research_Centre


This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's spotlight on front groups and corporate spin.


Social Issues Research Centre

The Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC) is a UK-based think tank arm of the public relations firm MCM Research

SIRC claims to be "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".

Its primary act as an organisation has been the formulation of a Code of Practice on Science and Health Communication. In this, the SIRC has worked closely with the British goverment, the Royal Society, and the Royal Institute.

The SIRC also produces and circulates literature criticising the environmentalist agenda (mainly GM, junk food), and alcohol-related topics (see sponsors, below).

It provides funding for Sense about Science.

<snip>

According to SIRC, journalists were too sceptical of reporting commercially funded studies. <snip> Certainly, the SIRC itself saw no problem in producing a report on the benefits of HRT for a group funded by the pharmaceutical industry, without indicating the funding sources (see "Jubilee Report", below).

<snip>

On its website SIRC states that funding for its work on the reporting guidelines "is provided by sponsors who share SIRC's basic interest in promoting better understanding of health and social issues. SIRC maintains complete freedom to conduct and publish research in pursuit of these aims, and does not promote the products, brands or commercial interests of sponsors". However it does not disclose who has funding the project but explained that it is "seeking funding for the support measures". These measure are "the development of resources for journalists such as an independent expert-contacts database, and a series of workshops bringing together doctors, scientists and journalists to discuss ways of improving communication on health and science issues'.

<snip>

MCM Research

According the the SIRC, MCM Research is a "sister organisation".

MCM Research claims to apply "social science" to solving the problems of its clients, which includes major companies in the food, liquor and restaurant industries.

"Do your PR initiatives sometimes look too much like PR initiatives?" asked MCM's website in a straightforward boast of its ability to deceive the public. "MCM conducts social/psychological research on the positive aspects of your business," the website continued. "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." [ADD REFERENCE]

However, writing in the British Medical Journal, Annabel Ferriman queried the role of SIRC given its overlap with MCM Research. "Both organisations are based at 28 St Clements, Oxford, and both have social anthropologist Kate Fox and psychologist Dr Peter Marsh as directors, and Joe McCann as a research and training manager," Ferriman wrote.

Asked by Ferriman whether they considered there was a conflict of interest given the overlap of the two organisations, Fox disagreed: "No, I don't think so. The kinds of work we have done at MCM have been fairly worthy things like designing management training programmes to reduce violence in pubs. They are fairly uncontroversial." [3]

<snip>

Jubilee Report

While SIRC was busy developing guidelines for reporting potentially controversial science issues, they were also undertaking work for a group established in 2000 called HRT Aware. Jocalyn Clark, writing in the British Medical Journal, HRT Aware hired the London-based PR company, RED consultancy to promote the benefits of hormone replacement therapy.

"What is not so well known is that HRT Aware was an industry group comprised of oestrogen product manufacturers Janssen-Cilag, Wyeth, Solvay, Servier, Organon, and Novo Nordisk," she wrote. [4].

"HRT Aware also commissioned the Social Issues Research Centre to produce a Jubilee Report (named to coincide with the Queen's Jubilee celebrations), which last month won a Communiqué 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 introduced a new elite group of 50+ women, dubbed the "HRHs" (hormone-rich and happy), who were said to have better careers, relationships, health, wellbeing, and sex lives than those not taking HRT. The Jubilee Report received widespread--and supportive--media coverage in the UK, virtually none of which mentioned that the pharmaceutical industry fashioned the campaign", Clark wrote.

Funding

According to the SIRC website the group 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". [5]

<snip>

Key paragraph from the link: Auggie May 2014 #1
And pissed-off in the ''right direction.'' DeSwiss May 2014 #4
Shit happens in France because politicians FEAR people. In the U.S.A., they LAUGH. Auggie May 2014 #5
USA politicians listen to the money bosses--Kennedy slipped Supersedeas May 2014 #159
Not informed by scientific research. ZombieHorde May 2014 #53
+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB May 2014 #69
''Informed,'' as opposed to ''propagandized'' is the operative word here. DeSwiss May 2014 #167
In some ways this is backdoor protectionism. Jesus Malverde May 2014 #108
Indeed. Politics, not science, is the real issue. HuckleB May 2014 #121
an ill informed, anti-science mob did this.... mike_c May 2014 #152
Cmon USA, you can do it ... MindMover May 2014 #2
I recommend this post +1,000,000 !!!!! loudsue May 2014 #11
Here corporations have far more influence than human beings. Enthusiast May 2014 #57
This is about Monsanto suing all the corn farmers The Second Stone May 2014 #144
Can you link us to a story about this? HuckleB May 2014 #145
Great news - here are the links bananas May 2014 #3
Based on what science? Texano78704 May 2014 #6
+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB May 2014 #9
Look it up. It is all over the internet. loudsue May 2014 #12
Can you please link us to this "science done in Europe...?" HuckleB May 2014 #23
+1 lunasun May 2014 #51
It's not FarrenH May 2014 #60
Most GMO "science" is from bloggers who are no more a scientist than I am. chrisa May 2014 #75
Hundreds of independent studies. HuckleB May 2014 #77
^^^ ditto marions ghost May 2014 #148
Odd that you would ditto a post that made a claim that had been disproved. HuckleB May 2014 #150
I agree with this part of it: marions ghost May 2014 #160
If you're confused, it might be because you go to anti-GMO political sources. HuckleB May 2014 #161
So you don't like the Canadian point of view... marions ghost May 2014 #163
So, you have no actual response. Got it. HuckleB May 2014 #164
I know too much about scientific studies marions ghost May 2014 #171
If you really knew about science Bonx May 2014 #174
I don't see any evidence of your claim to know much about scientific studies. HuckleB May 2014 #176
what's "all over the internet" is anti-science, anti-intellectual fear mongering... mike_c May 2014 #153
Exactly. HuckleB May 2014 #158
Yes, absolutely. DeSwiss May 2014 #14
Thank you for providing a link to a discredited study Texano78704 May 2014 #40
That's bullshit. DeSwiss May 2014 #44
Hmm. HuckleB May 2014 #49
Study has been discredited by scientists without vested interests FarrenH May 2014 #61
The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. Gore1FL May 2014 #42
Monsanto claims GMOs are safe. DeSwiss May 2014 #46
The FDA apparently agrees with Monsanto. Gore1FL May 2014 #47
And many other corporations. Monsanto is a small part of the GMO biz. HuckleB May 2014 #50
FDA apparently agrees with Monsanto. lunasun May 2014 #52
Do you have a credible link or are we just going to go with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories? nt Gore1FL May 2014 #66
I'm laughing too marions ghost May 2014 #85
Of course the FDA agrees with Monsanto, they appointed most of the FDA commissioners! Sheesh! DeSwiss May 2014 #55
There are in fact problems with the FDA and industry influence FarrenH May 2014 #63
And of course you conveniently leave out the names brentspeak May 2014 #138
Here are some. HuckleB May 2014 #151
Organic farmers claim organic apples are safe FarrenH May 2014 #62
Apparently "rational people" have never heard of Golden Rice FarrenH May 2014 #59
A lot of people in India do not want to grow or eat Golden Rice marions ghost May 2014 #86
Greenpeace is not a legitimate source when it comes to GMOs. HuckleB May 2014 #92
Greenpeace is a legitimate source marions ghost May 2014 #96
How exactly are you defining "experimental product"? ag_dude May 2014 #97
Seriously marions ghost May 2014 #98
How am I defending Monsanto? ag_dude May 2014 #100
1. You know why marions ghost May 2014 #101
So, in the billions of people that have consumed it in 15+ years... ag_dude May 2014 #102
Not enough marions ghost May 2014 #103
Use of the shill gambit is not legitimate. HuckleB May 2014 #106
I do not know where to even begin with this kind of unsound reasoning FarrenH May 2014 #113
It's clear marions ghost May 2014 #127
Really? FarrenH May 2014 #130
PRESS RELEASE > Environmental Chemicals Harm Reproductive Health: Ob-Gyns Advocate for Policy Change proverbialwisdom May 2014 #131
Don't like ENSSER as source? Gone. PLEASE FOCUS ON THE INTERSECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH & BIOTECH FOOD. proverbialwisdom May 2014 #132
Still not replying to what I wrote FarrenH May 2014 #134
I deleted all matters ENSSR from the post you are criticizing and added post #140. Please review. nt proverbialwisdom May 2014 #141
Sir or madam GMO industry spokesperson: marions ghost May 2014 #133
Maybe you could present something that isn't just bad anti-GMO propaganda? HuckleB May 2014 #136
Hey where's FarrenH? marions ghost May 2014 #137
You can call it what you want. HuckleB May 2014 #139
I have never attacked anyone in this thread marions ghost May 2014 #142
You have repeatedly used the shill gambit attack. HuckleB May 2014 #143
Pointless marions ghost May 2014 #146
So you can't back up any of your claims. HuckleB May 2014 #149
How's this grab you? MOST soy is GMO, maybe this isn't, wouldn't u like more testing on soy formula? proverbialwisdom May 2014 #140
No, it's not. HuckleB May 2014 #105
sirc.org is an industry front group (Social Issues Research Centre) bananas May 2014 #168
And Sourcewatch ignores the science on many issues. HuckleB May 2014 #170
BMJ Lobby Watch: The Social Issues Research Centre bananas May 2014 #169
Monsanto has nothing to do with Golden Rice FarrenH May 2014 #117
You can equate marions ghost May 2014 #123
I supported Greenpeace until they began this idiocy FarrenH May 2014 #111
seriously uh huh marions ghost May 2014 #112
Yes, I did FarrenH May 2014 #114
"Hippy dippy neo Luddites" marions ghost May 2014 #115
Hippy-dippy neo-luddites FarrenH May 2014 #118
You again marions ghost May 2014 #128
Political science JackRiddler May 2014 #45
Well said! marions ghost May 2014 #87
Nothing peer reviewed. ZombieHorde May 2014 #54
+++ FarrenH May 2014 #58
Viva La France.. Cha May 2014 #7
K&R DeSwiss May 2014 #8
The Seralini "study" was debunked years ago psiman May 2014 #21
I'll worry about my own reputation, you worry about yours. DeSwiss May 2014 #32
The bought-and-paid-for meme is bullshit FarrenH May 2014 #64
Yes, and the ''Seralinni's been debunked'' meme...... DeSwiss May 2014 #94
No, it's not a wash. HuckleB May 2014 #107
It's really a drag to see junk science spread at DU. HuckleB May 2014 #33
So what happens when someone produces a GM corn that meets all the standards? C_eh_N_eh_D_eh May 2014 #10
NOBODY said "science is scary". A shitload of scientists said MONSANTO is scary. loudsue May 2014 #13
People say science is scary all the time, and it's not the scientists I'm worried about. C_eh_N_eh_D_eh May 2014 #18
Exactly. HuckleB May 2014 #24
Who is paying you guys? loudsue May 2014 #65
Why the personal attack? HuckleB May 2014 #70
I'm a software analyst and developer FarrenH May 2014 #126
A shitload of scientists say the Global Warming is a fraud psiman May 2014 #22
+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB May 2014 #26
IF that ever happens we'll deal with it then leftyohiolib May 2014 #15
They can't meet the standards. DeSwiss May 2014 #16
+++++^^^^^+++++ marions ghost May 2014 #88
All GMOs are forever banned from our little hilltop in Arkansas, bvar22 May 2014 #17
Check it out. proverbialwisdom May 2014 #20
Reuters article here dipsydoodle May 2014 #19
This is great news for pesticide manufacturers in France. ag_dude May 2014 #25
You win DU post of the day! HuckleB May 2014 #27
The ones that aren't Monsanto, you mean? Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #28
MON810 isn't made to "sell lots of Monsanto pesticide" ag_dude May 2014 #29
A plant that is its own pesticide... is pesticide. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #30
I don't think you understood the context of my post. ag_dude May 2014 #31
So it's OK for Monsanto roomtomove May 2014 #34
You're using extremely generic terminology. ag_dude May 2014 #38
+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB May 2014 #48
The non-GMO crops are not Roundup ready? roody May 2014 #36
First, Roundup is a herbicide, not a pesticide. ag_dude May 2014 #39
Enjoy your Roundup ... yummy stuff that Roundup ... MindMover May 2014 #41
Do you understand the difference between pesticide and herbicide? ag_dude May 2014 #56
My mistake, thank you for the correction. proverbialwisdom May 2014 #68
I'll ask again, do you know the difference between herbicides and pesticides? ag_dude May 2014 #72
I know that I do not want to ingest herbicides or pesticides ... MindMover May 2014 #73
I have no issue with that, it's your choice. ag_dude May 2014 #74
It is my choice to stop feeding my body poisons however, MindMover May 2014 #78
I guess you are against the French GMO ban then... ag_dude May 2014 #79
That is the meme of Monsanto and other large pesticide/herbicide companies ... MindMover May 2014 #80
Borrowed analogy? ag_dude May 2014 #81
Again I will state that you are parroting Monsantos meme .... which is ridiculous ... nt MindMover May 2014 #82
How cliche. ag_dude May 2014 #83
Enjoy your Roundup ... yummy stuff that Roundup ...nt MindMover May 2014 #84
The REALFOOD.ORG Reader: Pesticides HuckleB May 2014 #125
It's quite astonishing, watching you fight the good fight against know-nothings here FarrenH May 2014 #116
Yes, this is the scary part of DU. HuckleB May 2014 #122
And accurate labeling, too. LanternWaste May 2014 #173
If the labeling makes sense, and has a legitimate, science based purpose. HuckleB May 2014 #175
But organic does not mean free from herbicides and pesticides. HuckleB May 2014 #76
Yeah, yeah, I edited the original post (#68) and made the fix there. proverbialwisdom May 2014 #93
In terms... sendero May 2014 #135
Roundup is an herbicide and a pesticide. Agony May 2014 #104
Hasn't shown a negative impact on humans or rats? Not true, check it out. proverbialwisdom May 2014 #109
Check it out. proverbialwisdom May 2014 #67
You saw the part about it being certain areas? ag_dude May 2014 #71
I do not know more about the status of this ban in France. Do you know about this? proverbialwisdom May 2014 #90
Yes, I do, and I ask yet again, do you understand the difference... ag_dude May 2014 #95
My response to your post was in error. It's fixed, why are you repeating yourself? proverbialwisdom May 2014 #110
REMEMBER ....Monsanto also tried to expand their monopoly with roomtomove May 2014 #35
If we're going to discuss science, please be honest about things. Thanks. HuckleB May 2014 #37
That one is working well today ... in the form of GMO + Roundup ... MindMover May 2014 #43
Thank you France for daring to say no to Monsanto marions ghost May 2014 #89
Check it out. proverbialwisdom May 2014 #91
I think Whole Foods says they will marions ghost May 2014 #99
Go France! LeftOfWest May 2014 #119
Umm. HuckleB May 2014 #120
-1. closeupready May 2014 #154
So... HuckleB May 2014 #156
+1 BuddhaGirl May 2014 #124
Viva La France marions ghost May 2014 #129
France is so awesome! closeupready May 2014 #155
This week's GMO labeling news from Vermont marions ghost May 2014 #147
AN ORGANIC FARMER AND A GENETICIST WALK INTO A FIELD HuckleB May 2014 #157
American Academy of Environmental Medicine position on GMOs: marions ghost May 2014 #162
This organization is highly suspect, and that's being kind. HuckleB May 2014 #166
What a creepy website you posted marions ghost May 2014 #172
That web site is anything but creepy. It is focused on getting the science right. HuckleB May 2014 #177
Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods HuckleB May 2014 #165
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Total Ban On GM Corn in F...»Reply #168