EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Every executive should own a copy of
The Playbook and hope never to have to use it. But if there comes a time that scientific knowledge poses a risk to business operations,
The Playbook is a guide on whom to hire, how to recruit experts, tips for effective communication, and ways to successfully challenge the science, the policy, and the scientists, reporters, and activists using science to further their policy agendas.
The Playbook is for every company. It outlines a universal strategy that is both offensive and defensive and is the predictable result of the central aim of the corporate structure—the pursuit of profit.
The Playbook highlights achievements from a century of delivering strong financial performance in the face of challenging scientific “evidence” and how to modify scientific standards of evidence to outmaneuver attacks. It identifies useful arguments made by outsiders that companies can amplify. It also lays out near-term threats. Case studies related to upcoming material are provided before each section to help refine practical skills.
The business case for challenging scientific evidence that implicates a product in a social problem is straightforward. By delaying costly and intrusive science-based regulations, the creation of scientific disagreement buys time and saves money. As with many other cost-saving operations that are perfectly legal, but are nevertheless socially undesirable—such as cutting wages, moving manufacturing to countries with fewer regulations, using offshore tax havens—the unmaking of scientific agreement must be treated with discretion. Keep
The Playbook confidential.
A successful campaign begins with a powerful arsenal. For tasks beyond the expertise or moral inclination of the internal workforce, there is outsourcing. A network of third-parties—lawyers, reporters, experts, public relations firms, think tanks, nonprofits, and trade associations—is necessary to mount a solid defense.
The Playbook also includes a recruiting tool for attracting and cultivating university researchers who can challenge scientific research with a patina of independence. The assembled network will be equipped with a variety of tools, such as press releases and advertorials, and various arguments and rhetorical devices. This arsenal provides a defense against any aspect of the scientific process that implicates a product in a problem. The arsenal is deployed to carry out the four-pronged strategy: 1) challenge the problem, 2) challenge causation, 3) challenge the messenger, and 4) challenge the policy.
Disputing a problem identified using the scientific method can be done with varying levels of intensity. In some cases, the problem may be denied outright. In others, the problem may disappear under scientific reanalysis, it may be shown to affect only a small area or number of individuals, or the problem may arguably be so complicated that it is obvious that more research (and time) is needed.
If forced to accept the problem, the option remains to challenge the science of causation. Call into question the experimental design, the data, the methods, or the statistics. Emphasize alternative causes and fund studies that provide counterevidence. Focus on scientific uncertainty, the lack of scientific consensus, and the scientific dissent. If there is no genuine disagreement, create it. Know that any standard of scientific evidence can be disputed.
For scientists, activists, and reporters whose work will ultimately put business operations at risk, it may be necessary to call into question their reputation. Claim they are apocalyptic, biased, doom and gloom, hysterical, or radical. Intimidate or coerce them. These tactics have the added benefit of discouraging young professionals from asking similar questions (the so-called “chilling effect”).
If the weight of scientific evidence is beginning to lead to policy discussions, challenge proposed regulations in much the same way as the problem or its cause. Claim that any regulation represents government overreach. Prolong the debate about which policy is most effective for as long as possible. Again, this buys time and saves money.
The overarching goals and strategies around challenging scientific knowledge that threatens business operations have remained the same, but some of the maneuvers, along with the media environment and culture, have been modernized. Many of the activities that companies previously carried out themselves are now subcontracted to public relations firms, law firms, and trade associations, similar to how manufacturing companies have sold off the parts of their supply chain with the greatest liability to middlemen.
The Playbook will inspire thinking on how circumstances might change yet again.
There will also be opportunities to boost independent arguments that reinforce the position that government regulation is difficult, damaging, or futile. For instance, independent experts unrelated to any business or industry may claim that some problems, like climate change, are too complex to solve. Others may insist that policy inaction is the result of various failings by scientists, such as their lackluster communication skills. These outside ideas help buttress the mission to postpone regulatory action.
Finally, near-term threats are identified that could jeopardize the ambition of these efforts, ranging from internal conflict within a workforce, high-stakes litigation, government firewalls that prevent industry involvement in decision making, rumors of a new Museum of Agnotology devoted to educating the public about the creation of ignorance, and a new manuscript that reveals many of the details of
The Playbook (see Appendix). However, there is every reason to believe free enterprise will continue to influence, control, and unmake knowledge generated through the scientific process for years, if not decades.
The Playbook will help ensure that success.
Copyright © 2022 by Jennifer Jacquet. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
