Foundations always sound like such sturdy things. Solid. Dependable. The warp and woof of the social fabric. Dedicated to good deeds. Sort of the Dudley Dorights of society. Earnest. Good. Relentlessly caring. Menacing. Menacing?
Oh, whoops. A little Bulwinklian twist here. Things aren't quite what they seem. Some foundations, it turns out, have unsavory agendas.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
What got me going on this was a brief notice in last week's issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute about the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, NY, and its Department of Cancer Prevention, Epidemiology and Biostatistics. It seems that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has funded project to track tobacco control activities in the U.S., identifying policies that are effecting in reducing adolescent tobacco use.
Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong and a lot that's right about reducing adolescent tobacco use. But the phrase "tracking control activities" -- tobacco or otherwise -- raised my hackles. What, I wondered, is this RWJ Foundation? I'm beginning to wish I'd never started looking. It's some outfit.
Were you impressed at the tobacco industry's $40,000,000 campaign to drive a stake through the heart of John McCain's Mega-Billion Tobacco Settlement? Don't be. RWJ has spent lots more to bankroll it's anti-smoker agenda. This outfit spent $10,000,000 in 1993 alone, to fund a program called "SmokeLess States," designed to create coalitions of state-based activist organizations. In 1996, they spewed forth two $20,000,000 chunks: one to "fund tobacco control initiatives in 30 states and two cities," the other to start the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids. Are you counting? We're up to $50,000,000 and the meter has just begun to run.
In an article by Linda Gorman at the Independence Institute in Colorado, I learned that in 1995, RWF spent $2,500,000 on a pilot program called Smoke-Free Families to develop "electronic tracking of women across preconception, prenatal, and postpartum settings." In addition, Gorman writes, "the Addressing Tobacco in Managed Care program spent $6,760,000, presumably to teach HMOs force their clients to stop smoking... and a whopping $20,500,000 was earmarked to develop 'detailed community-level databases' on youth tobacco, alcohol, and 'other drug use.'" Let's implant microchips at birth and be done with it.
In 1998, RWJ's investments included a $6 million, 3-year renewal of SmokeLess States: Statewide Tobacco Prevention and Control Initiatives. Focusing on intervention and treatment, Smoke-Free Families: Innovations to Stop Smoking During and Beyond Pregnancy was renewed for $15 million over five years. And a grant for $175,520 was made to the American Medical Association for data collection and analysis on effective smoking cessation interventions for adolescents, and "changing social norms about substance abuse through strategic communications." Could this explain the statistical gibberish of non-scientist Stanton Glantz in the pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association?
What's more, RWJ has just funded free access to a jolly little publication called Tobacco Control, an offshoot of the British Medical Journal which ought to be ashamed of itself. Junkscience.com could live off the silly science in this rag. But don't take my word for it -- go see for yourself. You'll find it at http://tc.bmjjournals.com I view it rather fondly as an attempt to bring science to the same level I see in the magazines at my grocery store check out stand.
Overall, I'd have to say that RWJ sounds good in theory, but in practice, they're dedicated to controlling adult behavior and absolutely exult over socialized medicine (another section of their business). I figure if they can help medicalize smoking and overeating, they'll be well on their way toward their Emperor status of ruling the health care world. Not bad for a foundation built on pharmaceuticals, huh?
The Pew Charitable Trusts
The Pew Charitable Trusts are heart breakers -- and I'd be willing to bet serious money that their current activities have the founders darn near whirling in their graves. The original founders feared government and loathed bureaucracy. What's more, they practiced their charity anonymously. How times have changed. You'll find an excellent summary Pew at the Capital Research Center, http://www.capitalresearch.org/ap/ap-1195b.html.
In the past few months, I've noticed lots of polls by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press. They're regularly used as a primary source for stories. PRC used to be the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press 1990-1995. But now they're sponsored by Pew. This is not what I think of when I dream about "public/private partneship." Pew's big on global warming (whether it's a scientific fact or just another hair-brained scare), and committed to "reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and the destruction of the earth's stratospheric ozone layer." I'm so comforted.
In 1998, Pew doled out $38,693,000 for 60 grants for various environmental projects alone -- including:
- $6,120,000 to The Energy Foundation to "support (1) adoption of state and federal utility restructuring regulations that promote investment in energy-efficient and renewable technologies and (2) initiatives for the market development of energy-efficient and renewable technologies". Can we say "lobbyist?"
- $250,000 to the National Audubon Society, Inc. "for conservation and recovery of Atlantic swordfish and sharks." What happened to the birds?
- $ 770,000 to the NY City-based Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. "to promote proper implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996." Huh?
- $ 3,000,000 for "general operating support" to the National Environmental Trust, which is big on banning phthalates and tells us that the American Council on Science and Health "never met a chemical it didn't like...and accepts 76% of its funding from corporations including the largest makers of phthalates."
- $4,500,000 to Strategies for the Global Environment, Inc.of Arlington, Va. "in support of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change." This seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul, but what do I know about financial fanoogling? Go look for yourself. Their website address is http://www.pewtrusts.com.
The Kaiser Family Foundation
This one's another biggie. Its primary activities target health policy, media and public education, and health and development in South Africa. Through its Public Opinion and Media Research Group, the Kaiser Family Foundation "undertakes original research on the public's attitudes and values about health and social policy issues. Working independently -- or in partnership with major national media organizations -- the group examines Americans' knowledge and beliefs on major issues and challenges in order to amplify the public's voice in national debates. In addition, the group monitors coverage of health and health care issues across local and national media to better understand the role of the media in informing Americans on key health and policy issues." According to its own promotions, it "operates the country's largest program in public opinion research on health issues and conducts a wide range of research projects on the impact of media in contemporary society."
Excuse me if I'm just a bit skeptical here. This outfit works with the Washington Post, Harvard School of Public Health and National Public Radio and assists Jim Lehrer with his NewsHour program by "helping inform NewsHour staff about issues in health policy and by providing research to NewsHour staff. The Foundation also works closely with the NewsHour's online staff to develop material to supplement on-air reports that is distributed through its website." So how come, Jim Lehrer and his staff can't do their own research?
From abortion, health insurance and health reform, to television ratings, V-chips and "talking with teens about violence" programs, this outfit is an absolute hotbed of social(ist?) activism. It's involvement in South Africa is designed to "develop a more equitable health system and a successful democracy." Ummm. Can we talk about constitutional problems with influencing foreign governments? Guess not. Check it out at http://www.kff.org.
I don't know about you, but I get a little queasy thinking about 100 dedicated Foundationers deciding the course of my life and my lifestyle. I get a little cranky when I think about the spoon-feeding that goes on with major media -- and the alacrity with which they gobble up "no brainer" press releases and video clips. I get just hugely P.O.'d and the hand-in-glove, you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours relationships between these outfits and all the piggish little PIRGs. What a club. What a scam. What a potential horror story, not only for the U.S., but the rest of the world.
How come industry is the evil empire these days? How come the Charity Cartel and the Foundation Empire have so much influence? It ain't good. It ain't right. And it's about time to blow the whistle. When it comes to lobbying, industry doesn't hold a candle to these twits -- largely because media falls for their point of view hook, line and sinker every time. So, maybe it's time we held a flame to the feet of media and insisted that more than one side of the news be reported -- and that media alliances with foundations be revealed in any stories published.
There's so much sound and fury about trust busting and product liability in business -- where jobs are created, towns thrive and stockholders profit. Maybe it's time to take a look at the interlocking directorates and back scratching that goes on in the world of "charity" -- where no products are created, nothing is invented and no one but the non-profits have anything to gain.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.