The World Health Report 2002 Box 3. 5 The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy(BSE)Inquiry, United Kingdom Our experience over this lengthy Inquiry has led us to the firm on the belief that the Government is withholding information. If doubts conclusion that a policy of openness is the correct approach. When are openly expressed and publicly explored, the public are capable of responding to public or media demand for advice, the government must responding rationally and are more likely to accept reassurance and advice esist the temptation of attempting to appear to have all the answers in a if and when it comes. situation of uncertainty We believe that food scares and vaccine scares thrive While communicating accurate information on risks is essential to risk perception and better risk management, it is scientific information and research findings that provide the basis for risk assessment. Such information or"known facts"are nevertheless subject to interpretation and the social construction of the evidence, which largely determines how the risks are defined, perceived, framed and communicated in society(30, 41). In addition, scientific uncertainties allow for widely different understandings of the same data, including distorting their interpretation in order to suit the interests of special groups. Although private for-profit and public health campaigning organizations often use similar tactics, businesses commonly promote public controversy as a means of avoiding greater government controls over risks. This strategy can be costly, as evidenced by the large financial resources that corporate interest groups commonly allocate to such activities. The tactics of industrial special interest groups, such as in the asbestos and tobacco industries, largely came to light when companies were forced to release a large number of internal documents after legal challenges groups attempting to show that they had suffered because of these industries (42, 4 (see Box 3.6 Special interest groups, whether public or private or for-profit or not-for-profit, are basically organized to promote and protect their own interests and it should be expected, therefore, that they will construct the evidence about health risks so as to support their position and interests(44). Industrial special interest groups are primarily motivated to protect profitable products or services and thus tend to frame and communicate associated risks by hiding or their harm. They therefore do not in any way support such actions as increased regulation or greater import-export restrictions. Disputes about the regulation of risks, particularly environmental and industrial risks, frequently involve legal Box 3. 6 Strategies for fuelling public controversy Policy-making is facilitated by building On the other hand, public health groups .criticizing and suppressing research that is consensus in society, while scientific research is campaigning for greater control of risks tend to unfavourable to their cause; ften characterized by uncertainties. Thus emphasize ethical considerations and the need disseminating positive or negative interpre- scientific debates on risks to health, particularly stronger govemment policies and regulation. Both tations of the risk data in the mass media, focusing on any assumptions and uncertainties, kinds of special interest groups use a number of particularly the lay press; usually slow down policy decision-making after strategies to support their position, for example by ing lobbying groups and advertising risk assessments have been carried out.. setting up independent but sympathetic policy campaigns to encourage greater public Corporate and private-for-profit special interest think-tanks and research funding organizations; support; anoftenbenefitthereforebyencouragingandsupportingexpertswhoare.communicatingfavourableconclusions erating public controversy so as to prevent sympathetic to their position rectly to politicians, government officials and or delay regulation and control of their products. funding and publishing research that supports bureaucrats; This is commonly done by emphasizing the interest group's position drawing attention to political and economic uncertainties in the original data, the methods, .disseminating supportive research studies in benefits, such as electoral support, employ or the quality of the scientific conclusions scientific publications: ment and export opportunities Soue:/43).40 The World Health Report 2002 While communicating accurate information on risks is essential to risk perception and better risk management, it is scientific information and research findings that provide the basis for risk assessment. Such information or “known facts” are nevertheless subject to interpretation and the social construction of the evidence, which largely determines how the risks are defined, perceived, framed and communicated in society (30, 41). In addition, scientific uncertainties allow for widely different understandings of the same data, including distorting their interpretation in order to suit the interests of special groups. Although private for-profit and public health campaigning organizations often use similar tactics, businesses commonly promote public controversy as a means of avoiding greater government controls over risks. This strategy can be costly, as evidenced by the large financial resources that corporate interest groups commonly allocate to such activities. The tactics of industrial special interest groups, such as in the asbestos and tobacco industries, largely came to light when companies were forced to release a large number of internal documents after legal challenges by groups attempting to show that they had suffered because of these industries (42, 43) (see Box 3.6). Special interest groups, whether public or private or for-profit or not-for-profit, are basically organized to promote and protect their own interests and it should be expected, therefore, that they will construct the evidence about health risks so as to support their position and interests (44). Industrial special interest groups are primarily motivated to protect profitable products or services and thus tend to frame and communicate associated risks by hiding or minimizing their harm. They therefore do not in any way support such actions as increased regulation or greater import–export restrictions. Disputes about the regulation of risks, particularly environmental and industrial risks, frequently involve legal Box 3.5 The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Inquiry, United Kingdom “Our experience over this lengthy Inquiry has led us to the firm conclusion that a policy of openness is the correct approach. When responding to public or media demand for advice, the government must resist the temptation of attempting to appear to have all the answers in a situation of uncertainty. We believe that food scares and vaccine scares thrive on the belief that the Government is withholding information. If doubts are openly expressed and publicly explored, the public are capable of responding rationally and are more likely to accept reassurance and advice if and when it comes.” Source: (40). p. 263. Box 3.6 Strategies for fuelling public controversy Policy-making is facilitated by building consensus in society, while scientific research is often characterized by uncertainties. Thus scientific debates on risks to health, particularly focusing on any assumptions and uncertainties, usually slow down policy decision-making after risk assessments have been carried out. Corporate and private-for-profit special interest groups can often benefit, therefore, by generating public controversy so as to prevent or delay regulation and control of their products. This is commonly done by emphasizing uncertainties in the original data, the methods, or the quality of the scientific conclusions. • criticizing and suppressing research that is unfavourable to their cause; • disseminating positive or negative interpre￾tations of the risk data in the mass media, particularly the lay press; • using lobbying groups and advertising campaigns to encourage greater public support; • communicating favourable conclusions directly to politicians, government officials and bureaucrats; • drawing attention to political and economic benefits, such as electoral support, employ￾ment and export opportunities. On the other hand, public health groups campaigning for greater control of risks tend to emphasize ethical considerations and the need for stronger government policies and regulation. Both kinds of special interest groups use a number of strategies to support their position, for example by: • setting up independent but sympathetic policy think-tanks and research funding organizations; • encouraging and supporting experts who are sympathetic to their position; • funding and publishing research that supports the interest group’s position; • disseminating supportive research studies in scientific publications; Source: (43)