• Le réchauffement climatique lié aux activités humaines est connu depuis 40 ans
    https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/12/01/le-rechauffement-climatique-lie-aux-activites-humaines-est-connu-depuis-40-a

    La communauté internationale et les politiques ont ignoré les avertissements des scientifiques, et des entreprises ont sciemment semé le doute dans l’opinion.

    Sur la question climatique, tout regard rétrospectif sur l’accumulation du savoir depuis un demi-siècle ne peut produire que deux réactions : regret et consternation d’une part, effroi d’autre part. Regret et consternation car, bien que la science sache fermement, depuis au moins la fin des années 1970, que les émissions humaines de gaz à effet de serre modifient profondément le climat terrestre, rien n’a été entrepris à temps pour infléchir le cours des choses. Effroi, car les nouvelles connaissances conduisent presque toujours à aggraver les diagnostics précédents.

    Acidification, réchauffement, stratification, mais aussi baisse de la teneur en oxygène et accumulation des effluents de l’agriculture intensive : les zones mortes de l’océan augmentent imperturbablement. Elles ont gagné de 3 % à 8 % de leur surface entre 1970 et 2010, et la tendance accélère, menaçant la productivité biologique des écosystèmes marins – c’est-à-dire la capacité de l’océan à fabriquer et à maintenir la vie.

    Une grande part de l’impact du réchauffement sur les sociétés passera par l’océan, qui fournit une portion importante des protéines du régime alimentaire de centaines de millions d’individus. Tout comme 680 millions d’individus vivent aujourd’hui en zones côtières de basse altitude, vulnérables à l’élévation du niveau marin. Celui-ci pourra grimper de 1 mètre d’ici à la fin du siècle, en cas de poursuite sans contrainte des émissions. Et, dans son dernier rapport spécial sur l’océan, le GIEC projette que les populations vulnérables à l’érosion des côtes et à l’avancée de l’océan à l’intérieur des terres pourraient atteindre 1 milliard d’individus.

    La rapidité des changements survenus entre le milieu et la fin des années 2010 a surpris les opinions. En dépit de l’arrivée au pouvoir de Donald Trump aux Etats-Unis et de celle de Jair Bolsonaro au Brésil, un basculement rapide s’est opéré entre le climatoscepticisme triomphant du début des années 2010 et la prise de conscience brutale de la gravité du problème moins d’une décennie plus tard.

    Cette bascule ne reflète nullement une évolution de la connaissance disponible sur la question climatique. Au contraire : celle-ci est relativement stable depuis la fin des années 1970. En 1979, le sujet est mis à l’agenda de la diplomatie mondiale lors de la première Conférence internationale sur le climat, tenue à Genève sous l’égide de l’Organisation météorologique mondiale. La réunion conclut qu’il faut intensifier la recherche mais, la même année, la Maison Blanche demande à l’Académie nationale des sciences américaine son expertise sur le sujet. La vénérable institution rassemble les meilleurs spécialistes américains, conduits par Jule Charney (1917-1981), physicien de l’atmosphère et professeur au Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Leur rapport, baptisé plus tard « rapport Charney », est le premier document consensuel dans lequel la science moderne prédit un réchauffement, en raison du renforcement de l’effet de serre

    .

    Une myriade de think tanks ou d’organisations-écrans financées par les industries pétrolières, gazières et pétrochimiques, ou par les fondations philanthropiques des grandes familles proches des milieux conservateurs américains, recrutent de pseudo-experts qui accaparent les médias, maintiennent une armada de blogs et de commentateurs anonymes inondant la Toile de contrevérités sur la question climatique. Avec succès. Des manœuvres d’autant plus choquantes que certaines des grandes entreprises pétrolières américaines avaient elles aussi, dès la fin des années 1970, pleinement connaissance de l’ampleur des risques liés à la combustion des énergies fossiles.

    Dans les années 1990 et 2000, ExxonMobil a continué de s’offrir, avec régularité, des publi-informations évoquant systématiquement la science climatique comme « incertaine »

    En 2015, le Los Angeles Times et le site InsideClimate News ont révélé des dizaines de documents internes du pétrolier Exxon, montrant que les ingénieurs et les scientifiques de l’entreprise n’avaient aucun doute sur l’ampleur de ce qui était à l’horizon. « Au rythme actuel de leur combustion, les ressources fossiles provoqueront des effets environnementaux dramatiques avant 2050 », lit-on par exemple dans un document daté de 1979.

    Selon les deux historiens, « en tenant compte des expressions de doute raisonnable, 83 % des articles scientifiques et 80 % des documents internes [de l’entreprise] reconnaissent que le changement climatique est réel et causé par l’homme, contre seulement 12 % de ses publirédactionnels, dont 81 % expriment au contraire des doutes » sur la réalité du phénomène ou sur sa cause anthropique. Dans les années 1990 et 2000, ExxonMobil continue de s’offrir, avec régularité, des publi-informations évoquant systématiquement la science climatique comme « incertaine », trop en tout cas pour justifier des mesures. « Il ne faut pas mettre la charrue politique avant les bœufs scientifiques », argumentait l’un de ces textes. ExxonMobil a donc été l’un des grands argentiers du climatoscepticisme, alors que ses propres services ne doutaient pas de la réalité du changement en cours et de ses causes anthropiques.

    #Climat #Conflits_intérêt #Manipulation #Négationisme_climatique

  • Le démocrate Mike Bloomberg achète le mot « climat » sur Google pour gagner la primaire - Société - Numerama
    https://www.numerama.com/politique/576101-le-democrate-mike-bloomberg-achete-le-mot-climat-sur-google-pour-ga

    Le milliardaire est entré tardivement dans la course à l’investiture démocrate aux États-Unis, et mise énormément sur les campagnes en ligne. Il s’est notamment positionné sur 840 expressions en rapport avec le climat, grâce aux outils publicitaires de Google.

    « Crise climatique », « écroulement climatique », « apocalypse climatique » ou simplement « réchauffement climatique » et « climat » : de nombreuses recherches effectuées sur Google US par des Américains mènent ces derniers jours vers des résultats sponsorisés par Mike Bloomberg, le candidat qui a récemment annoncé qu’il briguait l’investiture démocrate en vue de l’élection présidentielle américaine de 2020.

    C’est la journaliste Kate Aronoff qui a remarqué en premier le 25 novembre être ciblée par ces publicités, avant que le site Gizmodo n’enquête plus en profondeur sur le sujet. D’après nos confrères, les équipes de campagne de Mike Bloomberg auraient ciblé près de 840 expressions en rapport avec le climat, afin de se positionner très clairement comme le candidat « écolo » de la primaire américaine.

    L’objectif du candidat à l’investiture démocrate est clair : investir le créneau de l’écologie alors qu’aucune autre personnalité politique du camp de la gauche ne l’a fait depuis l’abandon de Jay Inslee en août. Michael Bloomberg a les moyens de ses ambitions, car il n’y a quasiment aucune limite aux dépenses qu’il peut engager.

    Mais c’est sans compter le fait que Google ne fait, par ailleurs, pas payer très cher ce positionnement. Comme nous l’a expliqué Bruno Guyot, expert Google Ads qui a accès à la plateforme de la régie de Google, réserver une dizaine de mots clés (cimate, climate collapse, climate change, is climate change a hoax, climate breakdown, global warming, etc) pour un mois aux États-Unis coûterait dans les environs de 8 300 euros, ce qui monte à environ 700 000 euros pour 840 termes. Soit une goutte d’eau pour un homme aussi riche que Bloomberg. Comme ces termes « n’ont pas une intention commerciale (…) les entreprises ne se battent pas pour afficher des publicités », nous explique notre spécialiste. Le champ est donc libre pour des politiques malins et bien entourés de spécialistes qui connaissent un peu le web.

    À noter que ces publicités sont ciblées : vous ne le verrez pas si vous effectuez des recherches depuis la France, et tous les Américains n’ont pas les mêmes résultats.

    #Conflits_intérêt #Michael_Bloomberg #Argent_Politique #Google #Google_ads

  • Inside Purdue Pharma’s Media Playbook : How It Planted the Opioid “Anti-Story” — ProPublica
    https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-purdue-pharma-media-playbook-how-it-planted-the-opioid-anti-story

    In 2004, Purdue Pharma was facing a threat to sales of its blockbuster opioid painkiller OxyContin, which were approaching $2 billion a year. With abuse of the drug on the rise, prosecutors were bringing criminal charges against some doctors for prescribing massive amounts of OxyContin.

    That October, an essay ran across the top of The New York Times’ health section under the headline “Doctors Behind Bars: Treating Pain is Now Risky Business.” Its author, Sally Satel, a psychiatrist, argued that law enforcement was overzealous, and that some patients needed large doses of opioids to relieve pain. She described an unnamed colleague who had run a pain service at a university medical center and had a patient who could only get out of bed by taking “staggering” levels of oxycodone, the active ingredient in OxyContin. She also cited a study published in a medical journal showing that OxyContin is rarely the only drug found in autopsies of oxycodone-related deaths.

    “When you scratch the surface of someone who is addicted to painkillers, you usually find a seasoned drug abuser with a previous habit involving pills, alcohol, heroin or cocaine,” Satel wrote. “Contrary to media portrayals, the typical OxyContin addict does not start out as a pain patient who fell unwittingly into a drug habit.”

    The Times identified Satel as “a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an unpaid advisory board member for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.” But readers weren’t told about her involvement, and the American Enterprise Institute’s, with Purdue.

    Among the connections revealed by emails and documents obtained by ProPublica: Purdue donated $50,000 annually to the institute, which is commonly known as AEI, from 2003 through this year, plus contributions for special events, for a total of more than $800,000. The unnamed doctor in Satel’s article was an employee of Purdue, according to an unpublished draft of the story. The study Satel cited was funded by Purdue and written by Purdue employees and consultants. And, a month before the piece was published, Satel sent a draft to Burt Rosen, Purdue’s Washington lobbyist and vice president of federal policy and legislative affairs, asking him if it “seems imbalanced.”

    Purdue’s tactics are reminiscent of the oil and gas industry, which has been accused of promoting misleading science that downplays its impact on climate change, and of big tobacco, which sought to undermine evidence that nicotine is addictive and secondhand smoke is dangerous.

    Media spinning was just one prong of Purdue’s strategy to fend off limits on opioid prescribing. It contested hundreds of lawsuits, winning dismissals or settling the cases with a provision that documents remain secret. The company paid leading doctors in the pain field to assure patients that OxyContin was safe. It also funded groups, like the American Pain Foundation, that described themselves as advocates for pain patients. Several of those groups minimized the risk of addiction and fought against efforts to curb opioid use for chronic pain patients.

    She has become an influential voice on opioids, addiction and pain treatment. Her writings have been published in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Atlantic, Slate, Health Affairs, Forbes, Politico and elsewhere. She frequently appears on panels, television shows and in newspaper articles as an expert on the opioid crisis and pain prescribing guidelines. “We’ve entered a new era of opiophobia,” she recently told The Washington Post.

    Satel has been a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute since 2000. Among the notable figures who have spent time at AEI are the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and former Trump national security adviser John Bolton. Current fellow Scott Gottlieb returned to AEI this year after serving as commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which approves and regulates prescription drugs like OxyContin.

    Purdue said its annual payments of $50,000 to AEI were part of the institute’s corporate program. That program offers corporations the opportunity to “gain access to the leading scholars in the most important policy areas for executive briefings and knowledge sharing,” according to the institute’s website.

    Purdue’s counterattack against an ambitious investigative series about OxyContin abuse may have contributed to that drop. An October 2003 series in the Orlando Sentinel, “OxyContin Under Fire,” found that Purdue’s aggressive marketing combined with weak regulation had contributed to “a wave of death and destruction.”

    The series, however, was marred by several errors that were detailed in a front-page correction nearly four months later. The reporter resigned, and two editors on the series were reassigned. While acknowledging the mistakes, the newspaper did not retract the series, and its review upheld the conclusion that oxycodone was involved in a large number of the overdoses in Florida.

    Dezenhall Resources, in an email, took credit for forcing the newspaper to issue the corrections. “Dezenhall’s efforts resulted in a complete front-page retraction of the erroneous 5-day, 19-part, front-page Orlando Sentinel series,” Hershow wrote in a 2006 email summarizing Dezenhall’s work for Purdue under the subject line “Success in Fighting Negative Coverage.”

    Purdue officials and the company’s public relations agencies came up with a 13-point plan to generate media coverage of the errors. It included getting a doctor to talk about how the series “frightened and mislead (sic) the people of Florida” and having a pain patient write a newspaper opinion column on the subject. The Sentinel series, one Purdue official wrote to other company executives and Dezenhall’s Hershow, was an opportunity to let the country know about “all of the sensational reporting on OxyContin abuse over the past 4 years. The conclusion: this is the most overblown health story in the last decade!”

    In the six years after Purdue challenged the Sentinel’s findings, the death rate from prescription drugs increased 84.2% in Florida. The biggest rise, 264.6%, came from deaths involving oxycodone. The state became a hotbed for inappropriate opioid prescribing as unscrupulous pain clinics attracted out of state drug seekers. The route traveled by many from small towns in Appalachia to the Florida clinics was nicknamed the “Oxycontin Express.”

    In 2017, 14 years after the Sentinel series was published, the Columbia Journalism Review described it as “right too soon” and said it “eerily prefigured today’s opioid epidemic.”

    Purdue also added Stu Loeser to its stable. The head of an eponymous media strategy company, Loeser was press secretary for Michael Bloomberg when he was mayor of New York City, and he is now a spokesman for Bloomberg’s possible presidential bid.

    Soon after Loeser began representing Purdue, Satel wrote in a 2018 piece for Politico headlined, “The Myth of What’s Driving the Opioid Crisis,” about “a false narrative” that the opioid epidemic “is driven by patients becoming addicted to doctor-prescribed opioids.”

    Loeser told Purdue executives in an email that “we are going to work with AEI to ‘promote’ this so it comes across as what it is: their thoughtful response to other writing.” His team was working to target the Satel story “to land in social media feeds of people who have searched for opioid issues and potentially even people who have read specific stories online,” he added.

    Loeser said in an interview that he didn’t end up working with AEI to promote the story. He said Purdue is no longer a client.

    Une belle bande d’ordures accoquinée avec une brochette de journaux peu regardants (quoique parmi les meilleurs du monde, ce qui est encore plus inquiétant).

    #Opioides #Sackler #Purdue_Pharma #Médias #Fake_news #Conflits_intérêt #Complicités #New_York_Times #Public_relation

  • Au procès du Mediator, les « négligences » de l’ANSM à la barre
    https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2019/11/12/au-proces-du-mediator-les-negligences-de-l-ansm-a-la-barre_6018817_3224.html

    « Il a été établi que l’ANSM n’avait pas, à compter des premières alertes de 1995 et jusqu’en 2009, accompli les diligences normales compte tenu de la nature de sa mission, de ses compétences, du pouvoir et des moyens dont elle disposait », peut-on lire dans l’ordonnance qui renvoie l’agence devant le tribunal, aux côtés du laboratoire.
    Face à face

    Servier et ANSM ont beau se trouver côte à côte sur les bancs des prévenus, ils sont en réalité face à face. Les avocats du laboratoire et ceux de l’agence ne cessent de se contrecarrer depuis l’ouverture des débats, chacun s’évertuant à souligner la responsabilité de l’autre dans l’affaire.

    Une distinction est d’ores et déjà établie : contrairement au laboratoire, l’agence doit répondre d’une faute non intentionnelle. Alors que Servier est jugé pour « tromperie », « escroquerie », « trafic d’influence » et « homicides involontaires par violations manifestement délibérées », l’ANSM l’est uniquement pour « homicides involontaires par négligence », ce que l’on pourra considérer comme déjà bien assez infamant pour une autorité censée, précisément, faire en sorte que les citoyens prenant des médicaments n’en meurent pas.

    Il sera par exemple intéressant de comprendre les bizarreries autour du renouvellement de l’autorisation de mise sur le marché (AMM) du Mediator. En 1995, alors que Servier demande à pouvoir vendre son médicament avec l’indication « adjuvant du régime du diabète », l’ANSM émet un avis défavorable, et écrit : « Cette indication n’est pas justifiée. En conséquence, aucune mention des propriétés pharmacologiques en relation avec cette indication ne peut être acceptée. »

    Deux ans plus tard, en août 1997, une employée de l’ANSM, Arielle North, écrit au groupe Servier qu’il peut « maintenir les mentions concernant l’indication thérapeutique du diabète » sur l’étiquette du Mediator, qui continuera donc à être vendu pour une indication fallacieuse. Arielle North viendra témoigner le 14 novembre.

    L’agence va devoir s’expliquer sur sa passivité, voire sa bienveillance, vis-à-vis de Servier. Sa « réponse insuffisante aux comportements fautifs » du groupe pharmaceutique, écrivent les juges d’instruction, « peut s’expliquer, en partie, par le vaste réseau d’influence tissé par les laboratoires Servier sur de nombreux responsables, agents et experts des autorités de santé », une influence qui « n’a pu que pervertir la nature et l’efficience du contrôle confié aux autorités ». Ce volet, celui des conflits d’intérêts entre le laboratoire et l’administration publique, constituera, au printemps 2020, le dernier chapitre du procès du Mediator.

    #Médiator #Conflits_intérêt #ANSM #Régulation #Indépendance _scientifique

  • Citrus Farmers Facing Deadly Bacteria Turn to Antibiotics, Alarming Health Officials - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/health/antibiotics-oranges-florida.html

    Since 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency has allowed Florida citrus farmers to use the drugs, streptomycin and oxytetracycline, on an emergency basis, but the agency is now significantly expanding their permitted use across 764,000 acres in California, Texas and other citrus-producing states. The agency approved the expanded use despite strenuous objections from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which warn that the heavy use of antimicrobial drugs in agriculture could spur germs to mutate so they become resistant to the drugs, threatening the lives of millions of people.

    The E.P.A. has proposed allowing as much as 650,000 pounds of streptomycin to be sprayed on citrus crops each year. By comparison, Americans annually use 14,000 pounds of aminoglycosides, the class of antibiotics that includes streptomycin.

    The European Union has banned the agricultural use of both streptomycin and oxytetracycline. So, too, has Brazil, where orange growers are battling the same bacterial scourge, called huanglongbing, also commonly known as citrus greening disease.

    “To allow such a massive increase of these drugs in agriculture is a recipe for disaster,” said Steven Roach, a senior analyst for the advocacy group Keep Antibiotics Working. “It’s putting the needs of the citrus industry ahead of human health.”

    But for Florida’s struggling orange and grapefruit growers, the approvals could not come soon enough. The desperation is palpable across the state’s sandy midsection, a flat expanse once lushly blanketed with citrus trees, most of them the juice oranges that underpin a $7.2 billion industry employing 50,000 people, about 40,000 fewer than it did two decades ago. These days, the landscape is flecked with abandoned groves and scraggly trees whose elongated yellow leaves are a telltale sign of the disease.

    The decision paves the way for the largest use of medically important antibiotics in cash crops, and it runs counter to other efforts by the federal government to reduce the use of lifesaving antimicrobial drugs. Since 2017, the F.D.A. has banned the use of antibiotics to promote growth in farm animals, a shift that has led to a 33 percent drop in sales of antibiotics for livestock.

    The use of antibiotics on citrus adds a wrinkle to an intensifying debate about whether the heavy use of antimicrobials in agriculture endangers human health by neutering the drugs’ germ-slaying abilities. Much of that debate has focused on livestock farmers, who use 80 percent of antibiotics sold in the United States.

    Although the research on antibiotic use in crops is not as extensive, scientists say the same dynamic is already playing out with the fungicides that are liberally sprayed on vegetables and flowers across the world. Researchers believe the surge in a drug-resistant lung infection called aspergillosis is associated with agricultural fungicides, and many suspect the drugs are behind the rise of Candida auris, a deadly fungal infection.

    Créer du doute là où il n’y en a pas, au nom de la science évidemment... une science « complète » qui est impossible avec le vivant, donc un argument qui pourra toujours servir.

    In its evaluation for the expanded use of streptomycin, the E.P.A., which largely relied on data from pesticide makers, said the drug quickly dissipated in the environment. Still, the agency noted that there was a “medium” risk from extending the use of such drugs to citrus crops, and it acknowledged the lack of research on whether a massive increase in spraying would affect the bacteria that infect humans.

    “The science of resistance is evolving and there is a high level of uncertainty in how and when resistance occurs,” the agency wrote.

    Since its arrival in Florida was first confirmed in 2005, citrus greening has infected more than 90 percent of the state’s grapefruit and orange trees. The pathogen is spread by a tiny insect, the Asian citrus psyllid, that infects trees as it feeds on young leaves and stems, but the evidence of disease can take months to emerge. Infected trees prematurely drop their fruit, most of it too bitter for commercial use.

    Taw Richardson, the chief executive of ArgoSource, which makes the antibiotics used by farmers, said the company has yet to see any resistance in the 14 years since it began selling bactericides. “We don’t take antibiotic resistance lightly,” he said. “The key is to target the things that contribute to resistance and not get distracted by things that don’t.”

    Many scientists disagree with such assessments, noting the mounting resistance to both drugs in humans. They also cite studies suggesting that low concentrations of antibiotics that slowly seep into the environment over an extended period of time can significantly accelerate resistance.

    Scientists at the C.D.C. were especially concerned about streptomycin, which can remain in the soil for weeks and is allowed to be sprayed several times a season. As part of its consultation with the F.D.A., the C.D.C. conducted experiments with the two drugs and found widespread resistance to them.

    Although the Trump administration has been pressing the E.P.A. to loosen regulations, Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the agency’s pesticides office had a long track record of favoring the interests of chemical and pesticide companies. “What’s in the industry’s best interest will win out over public safety nine times out of 10,” he said.

    A spokesman for the E.P.A. said the agency had sought to address the C.D.C.’s and F.D.A.’s concerns about antibiotic resistance by ordering additional monitoring and by limiting its approvals to seven years.

    #Antibiotiques #Citrons #Agrumes #Pesticides #Conflits_intérêt #Pseudo-science

  • Harvard Calls for Retraction of Dozens of Studies by Noted Cardiologist - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/health/piero-anversa-fraud-retractions.html

    A prominent cardiologist formerly at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston fabricated or falsified data in 31 published studies that should be retracted, officials at the institutions have concluded.

    The cardiologist, Dr. Piero Anversa, produced research suggesting that damaged heart muscle could be regenerated with stem cells, a type of cell that can transform itself into a variety of other cells.

    Although other laboratories could not reproduce his findings, the work led to the formation of start-up companies to develop new treatments for heart attacks and stroke, and inspired a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

    “A couple of papers may be alarming, but 31 additional papers in question is almost unheard-of,” said Benoit Bruneau, associate director of cardiovascular research at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco. “It is a lab’s almost entire body of work, and therefore almost an entire field of research, put into question.”

    #Fraude_scientifique #Conflits_intérêt #Science

  • Funding Matters – a statement about the corporate funding of academic conferences
    https://fundingmatters.tech

    As privacy scholars and advocates concerned with human rights, we write to express our dismay with the decision to have Palantir as a platinum sponsor for the Amsterdam Privacy Conference (APC).

    Privacy is one of the central challenges of our time and a pressing topic in today’s discussions on platforms, algorithms and policy making. The APC is a powerful forum for academics and advocates from around the world to move the field of privacy research forward. The conference is an important venue for privacy scholars from many different disciplines. The presence of Palantir as a sponsor of this conference legitimizes the company’s practices and gives it the opportunity to position itself as part of the agenda. This is deeply problematic and extremely regrettable.

    Palantir’s business model is based on a particular form of surveillance capitalism that targets marginalized communities and accelerates the use of discriminatory technologies such as predictive policing, for which the company has already been heavily criticized [1, 2]. Among Palantir’s public clients are police agencies and defense departments from all over the world. In the last year, Palantir has helped the Trump administration to find and deport asylum seekers, undocumented immigrants and refugees, raising serious concerns about wide-scale human rights violations [3]. While the company is largely secretive about its operations, it reportedly collaborated with Cambridge Analytica [4, 5], hedge funds, banks and financial service firms [6].

    Despite criticism over Palantir’s sponsorship since the conference’s 2015 edition, APC’s sponsorship strategy has not changed. This stance has consequences: it contributes to the marginalization and exclusion of scholars that otherwise would have participated and enriched the conversation at these events. Hence, it also impacts APC’s ability to nurture public debate on privacy.

    Palantir has also surfaced as a sponsor at a range of other prominent privacy and technology policy events. Due to similar concerns, some of these conferences have discontinued Palantir sponsorship, an example that we hope to see replicated. Given the political, economic and societal implications of privacy today, the funding strategies of our conferences matter more than ever. However complicated the process may be, it is time to develop sponsorship criteria and guidelines that ensure academic independence and proper consideration of human rights.

    We therefore call for:

    The discontinuation of Palantir’s sponsorship of the Amsterdam Privacy Conference,
    Organizers and participants alike to engage in an action-oriented discussion on corporate funding of academic events,
    The development of rigorous criteria and guidelines for corporate sponsorship, for example, based on Human Rights Impact Assessments.

    #Conflits_intérêts #Résistance #Sponsoring

  • Advertising in Medical Journals: Should Current Practices Change?
    https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030130
    https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/figure/image?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030130.t002&size=inline

    By accepting only advertisements for drugs and medical devices, medical journals have accepted an exclusive and dependent relationship with corporations. Perhaps the distance between the prescribing physician and the purchase of the advertised product contributes to the perception that drug advertisements in journals are somehow more professional than advertisements for goods hawked directly to the consumer. However, all advertising campaigns are designed to create positive feelings about a brand, to saturate a targeted population’s environment with a brand name, and to sell the product.

    #Médecine #Big_Pharma #Conflits_intérêt

  • Some of Trump’s Biggest Donors Are Profiting Big-Time on Immigration Detention Centers | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/some-trumps-biggest-donors-are-profiting-big-time-immigration-detention-ce

    The giant retail stores being converted into detention centers and these large tent cities cropping up to house immigrants, where did they come from? As always, it is important to follow the money. This plan to lock-up asylum-seeking migrants may seem like it happened overnight, but it has been years in the making. Only weeks after Donald Trump put his filthy hand on Lincoln’s Bible and took the Oath of Office, this was the February 24, 2017, headline at CNN Money:

    The actions Donald Trump, his sycophant Stephen Miller and Minister of White Supremacy Jeff Sessions are taking today are a huge payoff to the prison lobbyists and the border security industry that spent millions helping to get Donald Trump elected. Private for-profit prison executives were furious that President Obama decided to end the practice of using private prisons. They poured everything into Donald Trump and his campaign, maxing out $250,000 donations and even helping Trump raise $100 million in sketchy, secret money for his “inauguration committee.” And it paid off, as one of the first decisions from the Trump administration was to rescind Obama’s order to phase out private prisons.

    They didn’t stop there. These groups have been spending lavishly at Trump’s private business as well. The Miami New Times noted the private prison company GEO Group was one of the newest big spenders at Trump’s Doral property in Florida.

    In March of 2017, then Homeland Security chief John Kelly told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he was considering a plan to separate families and detain them.

    “We have tremendous experience of dealing with unaccompanied minors,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” "We turn them over to (Health and Human Services) and they do a very, very good job of putting them in foster care or linking them up with parents or family members in the United States."

    It didn’t take long for Kelly to publicly walk back that statement, denying he meant it would be a cruel, intentional warning or deterrent to others who might be thinking of seeking asylum in the U.S. But we can clearly see now, they’ve been plotting this for quite some time.

    [UDPATE] Bloomberg reports a Texas non-profit got a nearly $500 million contract to take care of the immigrant kids.

    The Trump administration plans to pay a Texas nonprofit nearly half a billion dollars this year to care for immigrant children who were detained crossing the U.S. border illegally, according to government data.

    The nonprofit, Southwest Key Programs Inc., is to be paid more than $458 million in fiscal 2018, according to the data — the most among the organizations, government agencies and companies that run a detention and care system for immigrant children on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services. Southwest Key has about a dozen facilities in Texas, including a site at a former WalMart Inc.store in Brownsville that has drawn attention from members of Congress and national news organizations.

    #Capitalisme_carcéral #Prédation #Conflits_intérêt

  • Federal Agency Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/health/nih-alcohol-study-liquor-industry.html

    It was going to be a study that could change the American diet, a huge clinical trial that might well deliver all the medical evidence needed to recommend a daily alcoholic drink as part of a healthy lifestyle.

    That was how two prominent scientists and a senior federal health official pitched the project during a presentation at the luxurious Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Fla., in 2014. And the audience members who were being asked to help pay for the $100 million study seemed receptive: They were all liquor company executives.

    They also made the industry privy to pertinent details, including a list of clinical sites and investigators who were “already on board,” the size and length of the trial, approximate number of participants, and the fact that they could choose any beverage. By design, no form of alcohol — wine, liquor or beer — would be called out as better than another in the trial.

    Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at Boston University School of Public Health who was shown slides from the scientists’ presentation at The Breakers by The Times, said the study “is not public health research — it’s marketing.”

    “This must have seemed like a dream come true for industry. Of course they would pay for it,” he said. “They’re admitting the trial is designed to provide a justification for moderate drinking. That’s not objective science.”

    Whether scientists studying alcohol should accept money from the industry has long been controversial. Many scientists and policymakers have publicly said that any engagement with the alcohol industry undermines the credibility of the research.

    In 2016, a group representing hundreds of scientists and policymakers published a statement saying researchers should never accept direct or indirect industry funding, and that “any form of engagement with the alcohol industry may influence the independence, objectivity, integrity and credibility” of the research.

    “We know that industry funding not only affects the results of studies but affects the questions that are asked, how the results are analyzed and what the answers are,” said Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a professor of pharmacology at Georgetown University and director of Pharmed Out, a group that researches drug marketing.

    If the health effects of moderate drinking are a priority for the N.I.H., she added, “they should fund it themselves.”

    #Pharmacie #Alcool #Addiction #Conflits_intérêt

  • L’éditeur scientifique Springer Nature entrerait en Bourse en 2018
    https://www.actualitte.com/article/monde-edition/l-editeur-scientifique-springer-nature-entrerait-en-bourse-en-2018/86068

    Éditeur des revues scientifiques Nature ou Scientific American, entre autres, Springer Nature envisage une introduction en Bourse en 2018, à Francfort, pour une opération de valorisation de 4 à 5 milliards €, annonce l’agence Reuters. Cette IPO aurait lieu au cours de l’été 2018, et le capital de la société serait augmenté de 700 à 800 millions €.

    Né de la fusion de Macmillan Science and Education de Holtzbrinck et de l’activité Springer de BC Partners, Springer Nature a accumulé une dette de 3 milliards €, et l’objectif de cette introduction en Bourse n’est rien de moins que la réduction de cette dette qui plombe les résultats du groupe.

    #Edition_scientifique #Conflits_intérêt #Publications_scientifiques #Springer #Nature_revue

  • Even Oxford University Is Mixed up With Corrupt Monsanto | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/food/university-oxford-has-disturbingly-cozy-connection-monsanto

    Food
    Even Oxford University Is Mixed up With Corrupt Monsanto
    An unscientific report completely discounts Monsanto’s role in climatic and ecological damage.
    By John W. Roulac / AlterNet
    November 4, 2017, 9:30 PM GMT

    A University of Oxford thinktank, the Food Climate Research Network (FCRN), has come out with a report, “Grazed and Confused,” that likens 100-percent grass-fed beef to that produced on a 10,000-cow confined animal feedlot operation (CAFO) like Harris Ranch on Interstate 5 in Central California—calling them basically the same in climate impacts.

    Think, for a moment, how absurd that is. One has to wonder why this Oxford thinktank is being so deferential to Monsanto and the GMO/fertilizer industry, which profits via the planet-killing, health-destroying CAFO model.

    The Monsanto Connection to Oxford University

    It seems that Monsanto has a deep and enduring connection to the University of Oxford (UO). Monsanto has paid out to UO through various business ventures more than $50M pounds ($75M US).

    Also, Oxford University Press has published a flattering book, written by Robert Paarlberg, full of Monsanto puffery: Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know.

    In 2006, the Guardian reported that UO professor and Oxford resident Dr. Richard Droll wrote and testified that Monsanto chemicals did not cause cancer, while he “was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from Monsanto, then a major chemical company and now better known for its GM crops business.”

    Oxford University has advertised a Monsanto Senior Research Fellowship.

    The distinguished and well-respected U.K. Sustainable Food Trust was also critical of the report, stating:

    The report focuses exclusively on greenhouse gas emissions, and while it does accept that grassland can sequester carbon, it fails to understand the vital necessity of returning degraded cropland to rotations that include grass and grazing animals, in order to rebuild carbon and organic matter levels, and the potential of integrating grazing livestock production with crop production in genuine mixed farming systems, to address a wide range of the food system problems currently faced…The only sustainable way to obtain food from grassland is to graze it with ruminants. With the growing global population it would be irresponsible not to do that.

    In one conclusion, the FCRN report states, “Grain-fed intensive livestock systems use less land and so cause less damaging land use change.” Yet the destruction of forest and savannah lands in South America for soybean farms to feed CAFO animals is in the millions of hectares. GMO corn and soy are two of the most damaging systems for land and habitat that the world has ever seen.

    Cows eat grass; therefore they don’t need to consume vast amounts of GMO corn and soybeans. Less GMO corn planted means less cancer-linked, soil-killing RoundUp being sprayed. If consumers can understand that pasture-raised beef is better for them than CAFO meat, they’ll change their buying preferences and sales of beneficial pasture-raised beef will go up, while Monsanto profits from agricultural products with a multitude of negative impacts for animals, humans and the environment will go down.

    Ces rapports payés par les industries sont en fait des supports pour la promotion cachée des médias. Il s’agit de se cacher derrière une « science » qui ne dit pas d’où viennent ses financemets et quelles sont ses allégeances. Et puis les rapports ne passent jamais devant des instances de contrôle...

    After the “Grazed and Confused” report came out, it began spreading virally across the web. One headline in the New York Post read: “Your Grass-Fed Burger Is Making Climate Change Worse.”

    To quote from this article:

    Environmentally conscious meat eaters have touted grass-fed meat as a solution to help negate the impact of cows on the environment. But unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Raising grass-fed cows also leads to deforestation—another big climate change issue—as farmers chop down forests in order to expand their pastures.

    #Monsanto #Université #Conflits_intérêt

  • How Silicon Valley Plans to Conquer the Classroom - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/technology/silicon-valley-baltimore-schools.html?emc=edit_th_20171104&nl=todaysheadlin

    Silicon Valley is going all out to own America’s school computer-and-software market, projected to reach $21 billion in sales by 2020. An industry has grown up around courting public-school decision makers, and tech companies are using a sophisticated playbook to reach them, The New York Times has found in a review of thousands of pages of Baltimore County school documents and in interviews with dozens of school officials, researchers, teachers, tech executives and parents.

    Au moins en France, ils n’ont pas ce problème : c’est directement le Ministère de l’Education nationale qui a invité ses cadres aux formations et conseils délivrés par Microsoft...

    School leaders have become so central to sales that a few private firms will now, for fees that can climb into the tens of thousands of dollars, arrange meetings for vendors with school officials, on some occasions paying superintendents as consultants. Tech-backed organizations have also flown superintendents to conferences at resorts. And school leaders have evangelized company products to other districts.

    These marketing approaches are legal. But there is little rigorous evidence so far to indicate that using computers in class improves educational results. Even so, schools nationwide are convinced enough to have adopted them in hopes of preparing students for the new economy.

    Intéressant cette notion de « pharmacy-like » technique de marketing. Il n’y a plus seulement l’industrie du tabac comme modèle de la capacité à créer un foule d’accros.

    In some significant ways, the industry’s efforts to push laptops and apps in schools resemble influence techniques pioneered by drug makers. The pharmaceutical industry has long cultivated physicians as experts and financed organizations, like patient advocacy groups, to promote its products.

    Studies have found that strategies like these work, and even a free $20 meal from a drug maker can influence a doctor’s prescribing practices. That is one reason the government today maintains a database of drug maker payments, including meals, to many physicians.

    Tech companies have not gone as far as drug companies, which have regularly paid doctors to give speeches. But industry practices, like flying school officials to speak at events and taking school leaders to steak and sushi restaurants, merit examination, some experts say.

    Several parents said they were troubled by school officials’ getting close to the companies seeking their business. Dr. Cynthia M. Boyd, a practicing geriatrician and professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine with children in district schools, said it reminded her of drug makers’ promoting their medicines in hospitals.

    “You don’t have to be paid by Big Pharma, or Big Ed Tech, to be influenced,” Dr. Boyd said. She has raised concerns about the tech initiative at school board meetings.

    In Baltimore County and beyond, the digital makeover of America’s schools has spawned a circuit of conferences, funded by Microsoft, Google, Dell and other tech vendors, that lavish attention on tech-friendly educators.

    Another way tech companies reach superintendents is to pay private businesses that set up conferences or small-group meetings with them. Superintendents nationwide have attended these events.

    One prominent provider is the Education Research and Development Institute, or ERDI, which regularly gathers superintendents and other school leaders for conferences where they can network with companies that sell to schools.

    ERDI has offered superintendents $2,000 per conference as participating consultants, according to a Louisiana Board of Ethics filing. And there are other perks.

    “Because we are asking for their time and expertise, we commonly offer to pay the cost of their food, transportation and lodging during their participation,” ERDI’s president, David M. Sundstrom, said in an email.

    #Education #Edutech #Conflits_intérêt #Pharma_marketing_model

  • Pruitt Bars Some Scientists From Advising E.P.A. - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/climate/pruitt-epa-science-advisory-boards.html

    Très fort ! Accuser les chercheurs qui touchent de l’argent de l’Agence fédérale de conflit d’intérêt, quand les industriels en seraient « par nature » exemplts. Ça c’est de la rhétorique...

    Mais ce n’est pas nouveau. Chez nous, on dénonce facilement les « chercheurs militants » (l’injure suprême, demandez à Gilles-Eric Séralini). mais personne ne considère ceux qui sont sous contrat d’entreprise comme des « militants du marché ». Pourtant...

    Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, stripped a half-dozen scientists and academics of advisory positions Tuesday and issued new rules barring anyone who receives E.P.A. grant money from serving on panels that counsel the agency on scientific decisions.

    The move will effectively bar a large number of academic researchers, many of them experts in fields ranging from toxicology to epidemiology, from advising the E.P.A. on scientific matters, since the agency is one of the largest funders of environmental research.

    Mr. Pruitt was expected to appoint several industry representatives to the panels. He did not impose any new restrictions to prevent them from offering advice on environmental regulations that may affect their businesses.

    #Recherche #Conflits_intérêt #EPA #Indépendance_scientifique

  • Trump’s New CDC Chief Championed Partnership with Coca-Cola to Solve Childhood Obesity
    https://theintercept.com/2017/07/08/trumps-new-cdc-chief-championed-partnership-with-coca-cola-to-solve-ch

    The new chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which monitors significant public health concerns, including the impact of sugary beverages on obesity and heart disease, will be led by Brenda Fitzgerald, a Georgia physician whose signature childhood obesity project was underwritten by Coca-Cola.

    Coca-Cola was so fond of Fitzgerald’s approach to obesity issues that an opinion column authored by Fitzgerald is featured prominently on Coca-Cola’s website.

    Public health officials around the country have made obesity a top issue of concern. The United States has the distinction of having the highest rate of childhood obesity in the world, according to a recent report from the New England Journal of Medicine. And multiple reports have found that regular consumption of sugary beverages is a leading driver of obesity, which is linked to heart disease, diabetes, kidney diseases, cancers and hypertension.

    More exercise, of course, is a good thing, but the Georgia SHAPE program notably eschewed another well-known step toward healthier living: curbing sugary beverage consumption

    The CDC in particular has also been targeted by Coca-Cola, which has long disclosed attempts to lobby the agency to influence public health policy.

    Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know revealed that executives from Coca-Cola and the International Life Sciences Institute — an organization founded with support from Coca-Cola — had pressured the agency to partner with the soda giant and allow it to weigh in on debates over sugary soft drinks. In one particular email chain with a CDC official, a former Coca-Cola executive discussed strategies for influencing the World Health Organization’s call for greater regulation of soft drinks. The former Coca-Cola executive called the WHO’s efforts a “threat to our business,” and invited the CDC official out for dinner to further discuss ways to sway decisions at the international body. Clyde Tuggle, the former Coca-Cola executive, was included in the email chain.

    #alimentation #conflits_intérêt #boissons_sucrées #obésité

  • Sécurité alimentaire : l’agence européenne minée par les conflits d’intérêts, selon une ONG
    http://abonnes.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/06/14/securite-alimentaire-l-expertise-europeenne-mise-en-cause-par-les-co

    L’ONG a analysé les déclarations publiques d’intérêts de plus de deux cents scientifiques répartis dans les dix groupes d’experts de l’agence européenne. Chacun d’eux est dévolu à un domaine précis (pesticides, OGM, additifs alimentaires, matériaux au contact des aliments…) et se trouve régulièrement amené à évaluer la sûreté des substances entrant dans la chaîne alimentaire. C’est-à-dire de tout ce qui finit, d’une manière ou d’une autre, dans l’assiette des Européens.

    « Nous avons analysé un à un tous les liens d’intérêts déclarés par ces experts et nous concluons que 46 % d’entre eux sont en conflit d’intérêts, direct ou indirect, avec des entreprises dont ils sont censés évaluer les produits », explique Martin Pigeon, chercheur à CEO et auteur du rapport – en partie fondé sur des données réunies entre janvier et avril 2016 par la journaliste indépendante Stéphane Horel, devenue depuis collaboratrice du Monde.

    Ces liens peuvent être la détention d’actions, des contrats de consultance, des financements de recherche… Ils peuvent être directs si ce sont des entreprises qui sont à l’origine des flux financiers, indirects si ces financements transitent par d’autres organisations (sociétés savantes, associations professionnelles, organismes de rattachement…).

    « Pour être clair, les intérêts financiers de tous les experts travaillant dans les panels de l’EFSA ont été minutieusement évalués, en accord avec les règles strictes d’indépendance de l’agence », se défend-on à l’EFSA.

    L’agence considère généralement comme un conflit d’intérêts une situation où l’expert a reçu des financements liés au produit qu’il est chargé d’évaluer. Schématiquement, un scientifique ayant perçu d’une entreprise un financement en rapport avec un produit A, peut conduire une expertise sur un produit B commercialisé par la même entreprise sans que le lien avec l’industriel soit considéré comme un conflit d’intérêts par l’EFSA.

    #Santé_Publique #Alimentation #Conflits_intérêt

  • ​Mise en examen dans l’affaire du Mediator mais nommée au comité d’éthique de l’Académie de médecine !
    https://www.marianne.net/societe/mise-en-examen-dans-l-affaire-du-mediator-mais-nommee-au-comite-d-ethique-

    La nomination de Marie-Thérèse Hermange parmi les membres du comité d’éthique de l’Académie de médecine, début janvier, avait suscité la colère. Et pour cause. L’ancienne sénatrice UMP de Paris, mise en examen en 2013 dans le cadre d’une enquête pour « trafic d’influence » dans l’affaire du Mediator, est soupçonnée d’avoir servi les intérêts des laboratoires Servier. Selon les informations du Figaro, ce mardi 28 février, l’intéressée a pourtant été « maintenue dans ses fonctions » par ledit comité d’éthique lors d’une réunion qui s’est tenue le 7 février.

    #santé_publique #conflits_intérêts #éthique

  • As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html

    What only careful readers of the article would have gleaned is the extent of the financial connections between the drugmaker and the research. The trial had been funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and each of the 11 authors had received money from the company. Four were employees and held company stock. The other seven were academic experts who had received grants or consultant fees from the firm.


    #pharma #corruption #conflits_intérêt