Think tanks: conclusions pt. I

Hopefully the last few posts have given you a taste of how think tanks can be used to promote economic gain for particular donors. How think tanks actually influence politics is subtle and not easilly encapsulated in few sentences. First, there is the "echo chamber" effect where media outlets and politicians begin to echo particular viewpoints that have been promoted by think tanks [1]. Second, the fact that think tanks can promote ideas that are not popular today allows them to lay the groundwork for the future defintion of particular debates. For example, if a think tank continually expounds that inheritence tax is in bad it will eventually become a legitimate point of view despite the factual merits of that point of view [1]. And lastly, this leads to the most subtle but powerful part that think tanks play in our political process: they add intellectual merit to specific points of view [1]. In other words, if a politician has a specific belief he or she will be far more likely to proclaim it (and get results) if that belief is backed up by "objective" research (for a detailed listing of think tank techniques [2]).

The very fact that think tanks are treated as institutions of objective thought makes them powerful forces. In "real" academic institutions (mostly univerisities, a subject in itself) members rise or fall by how well they can play to their peers; who presumably have enough training to spot problems with or bias in the data. Think tanks have no such check. Rather, their members rise and fall by their impact on public perception. How well they are able to influence public perception seems to be largely tied to the amount of funding they are provided [3], and how well they further the goals of the donors [4], rather than the quality of their research. This begs the question: are most think tanks simply highly refined advertising firms masquerading as academic institutions [5]?

At this time, and especially with the current administration, think tanks probably have far more influence on the political process than "real" academics. A great example of this is the Bush administration's amazing ability to come up with arguments against A) that global warming is happening [6] and B) that we should do anything about it if it is [7]. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists (nearly 100% of those people actually analyze the data) believe that climate change is happening and that it is human caused [8]. Further, some scientists are now saying that if our climate shifts beyond certain threshholds that it will precipitate a state shift that could make it difficult or impossible to switch back by simply reducing greenhouse gas emissions [9]. In other words, the entire scientific community, who uses peer reviewed research (and is thus as objective as humanly possible), is saying cut greenhouse gases now so that we can prevent a climatic state shift. Otherwise we're screwed.

But Bush ignores this plea, why? Because it hurts his pocketbook [10]. And where does he get the "research" to give legitimacy to his point of view? Think tanks. In a glaring example of self-interest ExxonMobil has been paying out enourmous sums of money (more than $8 million) to a slew of think tanks for one purpose: give amunition to those who don't want to do anything about global warming [11].

The whole aim of this post is to point out that many think tanks are not acedemic institutions that produce objective research. I'll conclude with these questions: can think tanks produce objective research? Are think tanks inevitable in this day and age? And if so, how do we deal with this situation? Do we have alternatives? I will discuss these questions in the next one or two posts, and then switch to a new topic.