Some time ago, in a posting entitled “The
Façade of the Will,” this writer quoted Lawrence Lessig:
There
is a feeling today among too many Americans that we might not make it. Not that the end is near, or that doom is
around the corner, but that a distinctly American feeling of inevitability, of
greatness – culturally, economically, politically – is gone. That we have become Britain. Or Rome.
Or Greece. A generation ago
Ronald Reagan rallied the nation to deny a similar charge: Jimmy Carter’s worry that our nation had
fallen into a state of “malaise.” I was
one of those so rallied. And I still believe
that Reagan was right. But the feeling I
am talking about today is different: not
that we, as a people, have lost
anything of our potential, but that we, as
a republic, have.[1]
This concern seems very relevant as the nation engages in the
most recent debate over taxes.
One side of
the debate over the pending legislation promises lower taxes and the other side
states that with the GOP plan taxes are going to go skyward for million of
Americans. This posting will not settle
this seemingly contrary arguments, but it will point out a concern associated
with the argument: US politics and US
politicians are up for sale and whatever the “donors” want will become the
message they will “sell.”
Lessig points out that this is not
the first time this charge has been made.
During the last years of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth
century, the commonly referred to “Robber Barons” – the heads of industrial
America – were buying off government officials left and right. Through this corruption they were able to
secure legislation (and some would say judicial decisions) to line their
pockets with higher profits from their business interests.
But at the same time, this
malfeasance spurred the reform efforts of the Progressive movement. In turn, along with, in later years, the New
Deal, many of the unethical, immoral, and illegal practices were in large
measure brought under control. Perhaps
today, a similar movement is called for; at least that is what many
commentators, regular citizens, and reform politicians are demanding.
Is there
evidence that this alleged degradation is currently describing the behaviors of
business leaders and their politician friends?
Lessig provides evidence that while behaviors from these business people
and their business policies might not be so blatant as those of the earlier
time, they still are present and still causing many detrimental results.
This posting wants to point out one example to
illustrate the general point – an example provided by Lessig. The medical drug companies of the US have
used their financial clout – the funding of political campaigns – to influence
the drug laws of the nation.
That influence, it is alleged, is not
to bolster the overall health of American citizens. If it were, perhaps the US would rank higher
on indices reflecting the overall health as compared to other countries. Instead, as the charge goes, it is to bolster
the bottom lines of the drug companies.
They are in the business of selling
drugs and a more liberalized policy concerning the production and selling of
those drugs – mainly through the abandonment or easing of regulations – can
accomplish higher profits. So, for
example, regulations that existed against drug companies advertising directly
to the US public have been abandoned.
Only New Zealand and the US allow
such advertising. Now, one doesn’t go to
the doctor to find out what medications he/she should take, but goes
pre-“informed” what those drugs should be.
Further, drug companies provide income producing opportunities for
doctors – speaking gigs, for example – and then keeps track whether a doctor
prescribes those companies’ drugs and to what degree.
This is subtler than a quid pro quo arrangement (what was
common in the Robber Baron days), it is more of a dependency relationship that
is set up. Lessig calls this type of
practice setting up a “dependence corruption.”
He claims it is not limited between business people or between business
people and professionals, but extends between business people and government
officials (more on this in subsequent postings).
And to that point:
… [W]hen we think of an institution
in which key individuals have become distracted by an improper, or conflicting,
dependency … [I]t is this pattern that explains precisely that weakens our
government. It is the pattern that
explains that corruption without assuming evil or criminal souls at the
helm. It will help us, in other words, [to]
understand a pathology that all of us acknowledge (at the level of the
institution) without assuming a pathology that few could fairly believe (at the
level of the individual).[2]
Such patterns
undermine the people of this nation to seek civic humanism or social
capital. It not only corrupts those so
engaged, but it can corrupt the foundations of a republic.
A more
concrete example of what this posting is attempting to point out is illustrated
with the institution of scientific research.
One question that is found to be of current importance is whether
certain chemical substances, used in the production of goods, is harmful.
This example somewhat parallels the
research that was done to find out whether cigarettes were harmful. The example here is whether the plastic
substance, Bisphenol A (BPA), used in the manufacturing of certain products for
babies – like pacifiers – is safe. Lessig
reports on the results of over 160 studies.
First, the studies can be divided
between those funded by independent agencies and those funded by the involved
industry. Among those that were
independent, they found, in 152 studies, BPA to be harmful (86%), 11 independent
studies found it not to be harmful (14%).
In the 13 studies funded by the industry, no studies found it to be
harmful (0%) and all of them found it to be not harmful (100%).
Whether one side of this divide is
right or wrong, this writer has no idea – although he does have the logically
derived hunch as to the safety of the product.
But his point is not whether BPA is harmful or not, his point has to do
with how one views this sense of dependency between the individual scientists
and his/her funding source.
It was pointed out that the focus of
the independent studies was the potential hazard the product might introduce or
not introduce in the use of the eventual products (like pacifiers); that of the
industry studies, on the other hand, was the risk exposure the product posed
the producers. The effect is to
undermine the trust one puts on scientific studies.
One logically reads such results and
walks away with the question: if any of
the independent researchers were funded by the industry, would they find
opposite results? Are these scientists
corruptly dependent on who pays the bills?
No, there are no satchels of money being handed over, the relationship
is subtler. It takes on a more
respectful veneer.
But, upon reflection, the institution
of science loses some of the trust the society once collectively placed on it. When that happens, one can readily see how
much more difficult it is to maintain “a social environment of trust and cooperation” generally among the
population, when a venerated institution is besmirched. As stated earlier in this blog, an
environment of trust is a central attribute of social capital.
This blog will revisit this concern
in the future.
