[Ip-health] IPN responds to wonk whore charge

[Julian]

We are indeed very cross at these false and defamatory statements about
IPN. On Friday The Times published three letters in response to Staines
false allegations, including the following by John Blundell, who Stains
had quoted out of context (and, in the case of the 'wonk whore' statement,
almost certainly falsely):

Sir, Paul Staines rightly criticises lobbyists who masquerade as policy
wonks (Thunderer, Dec 20). The purchase by companies of =93particular polic=
y
recommendations=94 from groups pretending to be independent think-tanks is
disgraceful. That is why International Policy Network, a UK charity of
which I am a trustee, has a strict policy of not allowing its donors to
influence the conclusions of its policy work, and a strict conflict of
interest policy. If anyone at IPN were to accept money for the writing of
articles pushing specific policy ideas on behalf of corporate clients,
they would be swiftly dismissed.

Staines has done a disservice to those who believe in economic and
political liberty by attacking IPN with false claims about its motives.
IPN works on a range of issues where such liberty is threatened by global
and local policies. Most of our more than 150 donors are individuals and
foundations. We also receive contributions from businesses, but none is
tied to the production of particular papers, let alone the delivery of
specific policy recommendations. We are, of course, always looking for new
donors and would welcome contributions from wealthy investors like Mr
Staines, so long as they don=92t seek to influence what we say.

JOHN BLUNDELL
Chairman of the trustees,
International Policy Network
London WC2

(John actually isn't our Chairman -- but he is a Trustee of our UK Charity)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1957241,00.html



> The Pfizer and Merck funded International Policy Network is very cross
> that The Times wrote an article on Monday accusing it of wonk whoring
> itself to multinational companies. IPN has issued a statement
> (reproduced below) denying the charges. The Times has not, at least
> not yet, retracted the claims.
>
> The Guardian mocked their statement on Friday referring to their
> funding from Exxon and their position on global warming:
>
> http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1673105,00.html
>
> The whole IPN statement is very cleverly worded. They may indeed have
> 150 donors but if 145 of them are giving =A3100 that would bring in
> =A314,500. IPN is bringing in =A31 million a year.
>
>
> The IPN statement:
> --------
> IPN has been in the news a great deal in the past few weeks. Mostly
> the coverage has been very positive. However, on Tuesday The Times of
> London published a commentary that is full of false claims about IPN.
> (The article is available here:
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-1943613,00.html>)
>
> We have responded to these allegations with a letter to The Times
> (which can be seen below) requesting that they make a retraction and
> an apology.
> <http://www.policynetwork.net/main/article.php?article_id=3D719>
>
>
> David Chappell
> The Times
> 1 Pennington Street
> London E98 1TT
>
> 21 December 2005
>
> Dear Mr Chappell
>
> I write regarding the Thunderer column by Paul Staines, published in
> The Times on 20th December 2005, which contained several false and
> defamatory statements regarding International Policy Network, the
> charity of which I am Executive Director.
>
> First, Staines claims that "The London-based International Policy
> Network said [global warming is] 'a myth'." This is simply not true.
> We have never claimed that global warming is a myth. We have pointed
> out that many myths are perpetrated about global warming; it seems
> that one of these myths is that IPN thinks global warming is a myth.
>
> Second, Staines claims that in return for calling global warming "a
> myth," IPN received $250,000 from Exxon for "climate change outreach."
> Again, this is not true. IPN has a programme on environment and
> sustainable development issues to which the ExxonMobil Foundation has
> contributed over a number of years - as it has contributed to hundreds
> of other causes. ExxonMobil chose to account for their funding of our
> programme as "climate change outreach" but imposed no restrictions
> whatsoever on the way we used the funds. ExxonMobil has had no
> oversight of any of our projects. We would never have accepted any
> contribution that came with such strings. Furthermore, while I am now
> IPN's Executive Director, I have been conducting academic research and
> publishing on climate change issues for over a decade and would have
> continued to do so through IPN or other organisations with or without
> support from Exxon or any other company; the support simply enables
> IPN to do more of what it wants to do anyway.
>
> Third, Staines claims that "Free open-source software is, they say,
> bad for economic growth." This is not merely false, it is bizarre. I
> personally co-authored a paper in 2004 with Indian economist Bibek
> Debroy in which we argued that open source software may be an
> important part of the software sector of an economy, and this can
> contribute to economic growth (albeit likely in a relatively small way
> in most poor countries) - quite the opposite of what Staines claims.
> To be sure we argued that open source software is very unlikely to
> thrive on its own and that it would usually be part of a larger sector
> that would include proprietary software, but that is rather a
> different matter.
>
> Fourth, Staines claims that "Microsoft electronically transfers its
> support" to IPN in pursuit of the assertions we never made about open
> source software. We received no support from any software company in
> relation to the work we carried out on open source software. Indeed,
> we didn't even have sufficient resources to print a physical version
> of the report Bibek and I produced, which was released electronically
> by the Rajiv Ghandi Foundation in India.
>
> Fifth, Staines tries to sully IPN by association with Doug Bandow,
> claiming that he attended the launch of our Campaign for Fighting
> Diseases. This is not true. Mr Bandow did not attend the launch or
> indeed any meetings of the Campaign. Even if he had, I have no doubt
> that Mr Bandow has attended hundreds of meetings in the past few
> years; are all the organisations whose meetings he attended to be
> tarred with the same brush? This is a ludicrous attempt to impute
> guilt by association.
>
> Sixth, Staines claims that IPN's Campaign for Fighting Diseases is
> funded by "Big Pharma." In fact, the Campaign is funded out of general
> contributions from our more than 150 donors. We have indeed received
> support from pharmaceutical companies. For example, New York-based
> Pfizer and New Jersey-based Merck have bought tables at our annual
> Bastiat Prize Dinner, which has been held in New York for the past
> three years. Again, no contributions from these companies have ever
> come with strings attached and no pharmaceutical company has ever had
> oversight over any of IPN's activities.
>
> Seventh, Stains claims that "pamphlet after pamphlet from IPN
> recommends policies that would further boost the gargantuan profits of
> Pfizer, the world's biggest pharmaceutical corporation." Presumably Mr
> Staines is not referring to pamphlets such as "Aid and Development:
> Will it Work this Time?" by Frederick Erixon, or "Perpetuating Poverty
> in Sub-Saharan Africa" by Moeletsi Mbeki. These were the publications
> we promoted most heavily this year -- and to good effect: we have
> helped to challenge the conventional wisdom that foreign aid promotes
> economic development.
>
> If an employee of IPN had behaved in the manner in which Doug Bandow
> behaved =96 taking money from a company for writing articles that
> promote the interests of that company =96 the Trustees and I would
> respond in the same way that the Cato Institute responded to Doug
> Bandow: we would ask him or her to resign. If a journalist discovers
> such behaviour, we would be genuinely appreciative if they should tell
> me and/or the Trustees and Directors of IPN, so that we can take
> appropriate action =96 though of course we would prefer to hear about it
> privately before it goes public. Likewise, in future, when you plan to
> publish a potentially defamatory piece about my organisation, perhaps
> your editor should call us to establish the veracity of the claims
> being made.
>
> So to Staines' question: "is this ethically suspect cash for
> policies?" the answer must be a resounding "No." Unfortunately, the
> question was intended rhetorically and so compounds Staines'
> defamatory claims about IPN, all of which deserve an unreserved and
> immediate retraction and apology from the author and from The Times
> newspaper. This apology and retraction should appear prominently in
> proximity to the Thunderer column and should appear at the top of the
> article in the online version of the piece, which should have the
> defamatory remarks removed.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Julian Morris, Executive Director
>
> cc. Daniel Finkelstein
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>