L
THE ·SCIENCE" OF INDUSTRY 291from researchers that might make otherwise unanticipated news. I had
learned well that, when the stakes are high, industry was not averse to
putting its own spin on a story.
They listed about nine potentially damaging projects, and I had the
dubious distinction of being the only researcher responsible for two
of the projects. I was named once for the China Study, which one of
the members was assigned to watch over, and once for my association
with the American Institute for Cancer Research CAICR), especially my
chairing of the review panel that decided which research applications
on diet and cancer got funded. Another panel member had the task of
keeping an eye on the AICR activity.
After learning of The Airport Club, and of the individual aSSigned to
watch over me at the AICR grant meetings, I was in a position to see
how his spying was going to unfold. I went into the first AICR review
panel meeting after learning of the Club with an eye on the spy who was
keeping an eye on me!
One might argue that this industry-funded "spying" was not illegal,
and that it is prudent for a business to keep tabs on potentially damag-
ing information that might affect its future. I agree completely, even if
it was disconcerting to find myself on the list of those being spied on.
But industry does more than just keep tabs on "dangerous" research. It
actively markets its version, regardless of potentially disastrous health
effects, and corrupts the integrity of the science to do so. This is espe-
cially troubling when academic scientists do the spying and hide their
intentions.POWERFUL GROUPS
The dairy industry, one of the sponsors of The Airport Club, is particu-
larly powerful in this country. Founded in 1915, the well-organized,
well-funded National Dairy Council has been promoting milk for al-
most a hundred years.^2 In 1995, two major milk industry groups put
a new face on their old establishment, renaming it Dairy Management,
Inc. The purpose of this new group was "to do one thing: increase de-
mand for U.s.-produced dairy products," to cite their Web site.^3 They
had a 2003 marketing budget of more than $165 million to do it.^4 In
comparison, the National Watermelon Promotion Board has a budget
of $1.6 million.^5 A Dairy Management, Inc., press release includes the
following items^4 :