Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
...If I recall correctly, we receive nearly 250 offers per year to attend conferences, book reviews, etc, etc, etc. As Jedburgh just posted, not easy to find one that's not financially connected to a scam on the GWOT....
To follow this tangent a bit, in my perception, parasitic feeding off of the GWOT is serious issue. It not only feeds off of the general public with fast-food publishing along the lines that I've mentioned, they also feed off both the government and private sector, exploiting decision makers who should know better. With finite resources under strain we need to take care with our commitments. However, exaggerating and creating threats has become big business. And, what should be to their great shame, many people with real-world experience and genuine expertise compromise their personal integrity in scaremongering along certain lines to ensure continued high fees for their scribblings and speaking engagements. Or they serve for a hefty sum as a front man for organizations with no motives other than profit. Working in the private sector, I have seen our executives scammed by vendors in this market for big bucks too often to be comfortable. But what is criminal is the degree to which some of this affects government decision making and budget decisions that affect national security.

A member of a risk analysis list-serve I am also a member of posted a good assessment of manipulation of information for profit; I'll repost it here:
I am not sure what "legitimate" means in this context. Public outrage
can sometimes be easily manipulated, and this can be exploited by the politically astute. Example: If my agency, in charge of regulating X, is a bit short of money, here is how I can fix that problem.

1. Fund a few scientists to investigate (or at least write about) the question "Can we be certain that X does not cause dreaded illness Y?"

2. Get the risk communication program in gear. Issue a PR release saying "Scientists investigate link between X and Y". If this does not bring more funding immediately (to support the studies), take a few public opinion polls among those who have read the first press release, then issue a second one: "Concern grows about potential link between X and Y."

3. Now, scientists cannot easily prove a negative, but can easily encounter false positives using currently widely practiced epidemiological methods. (To be extra sure of getting a positive answer, one may follow the U.S. FDA and simply assume a positive linear model, Y = kX, then focus on quantifying k. This begs the question of whether X actually causes Y and guarantees a positive "risk estimate" for k for *any* two positive quantities X and Y, such as quantity of chicken eaten and number of cases of illness. It even works on purely random data, e.g., if X and Y are independent random variables.)

4. Issue another PR statement saying "New risk studies quantify link between X and Y -- more study needed."

5. Publish news releases and editorial pieces (preferably expressing outrage) in friendly journals, discussing the growing crisis of X (possibly) causing Y. Hold public meetings to discuss perceptions, identify concerns, and share fears about possible risks from X. If possible, have vicitims of Y testify that they know (at least with moral certainty, if not using the artificial ways of knowing favored by scientists and statisticians) that X caused their suffering.

6. Lobby for more funding to study and/or ban X in order to addres the public's concern and expressed outrage about Y.

7. Usually, by this time, the makers of X will object. They may point out that there is no shred of evidence that X actually causes Y. This need not be a problem. Handled correctly, it is an opportunity. Publish outraged articles and editorials (e.g., accusing the makers of X of shamelessly profiting from their manufacture of X while innocent people suffer from Y). Vilify them. AIr moving footage of vicitims of Y juxtaposed with the facilities that manufacture X. Get the Union of Concerned Scientists to voice their concerns -- it's what they are there for.

8. If the makes of X persevere (unlikely) and insist that there is still no evidence that X actually causes Y, then play the trump card: point out that public outrage now requires political action, even if X has not been "shown scentifically" to cause Y. By this time, budget pains should have disappeared. If not, return to step 1 and repeat for additional different X and Y.

This scenario does not imply that outrage should not be expressed or that it cannot be legitimate. It does suggest that public outrage can sometimes be shaped and manipulated by those with an interest in doing so.