ah ah ah ah ah, every day, more needs more technology available. more comfort? more products on the shelves. ah, and every day, new questions. what is there in our fields, on our plate, in our medicines as the industrial era made our world toxic mm. concern is

growing. citizens accuse industries of hiding the truth from us and industry denies it. how can we judge? so we turn to science, we ask researchers to be the judges of these new battles. for us. we demand that they step into the arena. we're living in a world where there are many people who have a vested interest in fighting information, finding scientific evidence, and discrediting even the notion that science could provide the truth about the natural world. they are tentatively seeking to derail science. so we need to identify these attacks to expose the maneuvering of those trying to stand in the way of knowledge. and in that context is essential for us to understand who these people are, what they do, why they do it, and how they do it. ah,

and we have to understand how it is that the public sometimes participates in the spreading of this deliberate ignorance. so we need to visit that landscape of manufactured ignorance. mm. mm. in northern greece, like in most of the developed world bees are the victims of an ongoing carnage. well known since the 19 ninety's. this has now become a textbook case, a point from where we can begin our exploration of the manufacturer of ignorance. things always start with an enigma in greece like elsewhere, experts on bees didn't understand what was happening and why ne, it can i missed it? yep. hello hooks. have nika element does, is paula boy,

the deputy don't levy news programs everywhere showed beekeepers in total disarray . i do here. secondly, a suspect shows up this time. it was a new generation of insecticides in our fields, the mo, the latest baby of the agro chemical industry at the time to pull active ingredients. every syngenta formulation is the result of years of careful investigation and thorough research by our scientists. you moment these new products were spread on our crops down to the draw be started dying in their millions of active ingredients. if the get a message i'm at the same point is debbie, unequal thirdly, science is asked to investigate. to do so funny how gina has been constantly going back and forth between her hives and her lab. emerson embassy witnessed by seamless place of almost every benevolent policy but looking for the truth has proven to be a game of cat and mouse. ah,

the usual task for scientists is to retreat into the calm of their labs, then explain what's being observed on the ground. we ask them to shed light on the mystery of the dying bees, just as they have explained so many other phenomena. the role of science is to highlight natural mechanisms and reach an explanation for the slightest observable fact. this is how science normally progresses my solving more and more mysteries and in principle, our knowledge of the world we live and increases. however, this fine principle sometimes has a few hiccups. for scientific observers, the case of the vanishing bees is emblematic of this with something like ease and pesticides, you should have been able to investigate it by collecting data by following the

evidence where it's taking you. the crux of the idea is that when we find the evidence that tells us what's happening, we tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. and we let the chips fall where they may, we commit in a way of, you know, committing to accepting the truth of those findings. but in the case of the bees, that's not exactly how things went in the early 2, thousands go from a to expert report showed the toxic effect of even very low doses of new nicotine, always on bees. and yet for more than 20 years, there has been no unanimity, no consensus on the link between these pesticides and the disappearance of bees. wire things lagging so much. you need to be a very shrewd observer to see the whole picture about a new moon over at horn is ebay? yeah, a pipe. yeah. yeah. but that's got a sunk for bruce doors. yes,

she only goes into let's see. what is it pathogen that you had with a juan with emerge, if you'll use me with history or the most partic, i p card one cannot eat that you dial the exact notarial loop one. why? yes, good with this base of as eve, new but you could help dollars. but if they took in value to look was advantage if j the printed until the mornings ploy and where the aucker. this is a quick search in a scientific study database proves it. as soon as pesticides were suspected, the number of public or private studies focusing on other possibilities skyrocketed . 2010. the veterinary authorities were confused over your ill, a hole in the hold bug you. sympathy is both good, definite looking perfect. the more studies there were, the less beekeepers to make sense of it all. it seems like a paradox until you look back to an older case. when you see a flourishing of new studies emerge in any particular area. a little bit ironically,

it creates the appearance of being dedicated to pursuing the truth. but it takes me directly back to the case of big tobacco. why it's what's up front that can end up brown to head up the filter. to understand, we need to go back to the 1950s a time when tobacco was treated with total recklessness. so to blend mean on the back. oh boy, the back gate. yeah. that's why, but this recklessness wouldn't last. what does this pano jane? i just was back in december 1953. the bad news broke researchers had just provoked cancer in mice by painting them with tar from cigarette. after this discovery war broke out, the tobacco companies had

a real crisis because they can't contest the evidence and say it's wrong, they should just say we don't know. and so the leaders of all the major cigarette companies got together in new york city. we now know that a meeting took place at the plaza hotel in new york in december, between the boss as of the 7 major manufacturers, collectively known as big tobacco. imagine the scene with musket run to the heart of the matter. the meeting would go down in the annals of ignorance, a challenge to every one of us. and we were all in this together unify. confronted with scientific progress, the cigarette manufacturers came up with a plan. they launched this campaign in which they said, you know, we're aware of the science. we think there are problems with it and is your matter

of deep concern to us. now we are beginning a campaign to spell out that basic point so that no one will fail to get it. they decided to make a public statement. we are pledging aid and assistance to the research effort into all phases of tobacco use of health. for this purpose, we are establishing a joint tobacco industry group. the tobacco industry research committee would say, yes. the press published the declaration, tobacco industry to start scientific research. ah, believe me, friends, just feel as for your smoky pleasure and protection. every advantage known to modern science just reveal if you scientific back,

then these are blas don't sound to de la sheshe slipped a bow, a these pony map pledge illness, and while me still to oppose it, you said, was key book a long cold. don't lafitte either be the one me to leave that midterm, he'll speak, combs less young 8 debbie that's really using science against itself. the explicit use of science again, science i think, does represent a kind of watershed to systematically find the scientific research in order to undermine science, effectively fighting fire with fire, that's a watershed moment. so after they do side of this, how did they operationalize? and one of the things the tobacco companies funded a lot of them is what i call distracting research. the labs backed by the cigarette manufacturers defined research projects known as special projects or espied

a whole arsenal for diverting science. they researched for example, lung cancer and non smokers. they searched for links to habitat working conditions, personal habits. they experimented on rabbits to see if lung cancer could be caused by toxins or viruses. big tobacco thus generously financed hundreds of research projects. some of these projects turned out to be very useful, such as research into the precursors of cardiovascular disease. put others were totally wacky, can egg yolk, or tomato juice on the skin li to tumors. what's the link between lung cancer and baldness, or between the same cancer and the month of birth? if you born in march, claim to one study, you were more at risk before it gently played goes at a point that vehicle divisions equal to point that deal. i called c to so meet, didn't you? i don't know why young was told on a nurse because she wanted to need

a convincing strategy because a lung cancer can probably be explained by a combination of factors. identifying the different risk factors as normal in size . multiplying avenues of research seems totally legitimate, but it can also be extremely handy for so in confusion. ah, it becomes almost impossible to prove the suspects guilt, and that's the aim that's extremely well understood. and that designed playbook for pretty much every other science denial that has followed this the story about tobacco. this is the story about acid rain. this is a story about the ozone hole this story about pesticides. this is the story about climate change. you know, nick, it to an ice, this penal 8th conscious f 2 pills. i mean we have now seen the strategy used over and over and over again. about buying time is similar in

strategic daniel, in the case of tobacco, it's 70 years already and it's still going. mm ah a happy hey, a allowed them to get them outside and by then coffee. so she has an odd at a by then it's a shift or a florida.

so with multiple multiple gyms or more kind of in that to so that gives you how was but it shows e o here. marcella. due to have to put a symbol for this to say, what kind of a button and what else is it a philosophy on it? because you how money comes in and say, hey, do a a what my pay, what i can i maybe maybe i'm maybe we can . oh, is your media a reflection of reality?

in the world transformed? what will make you feel safe for isolation, prim unity. are you going the right way? you being led to some well direct. what is true? what is great? in the world corrupted, you need to descend. ah, so join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be in arms. race is on often very dramatic development. only personally and

getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk in the case of the dying bees, the advancement of knowledge has also been deliberately slowed down. is there oh, in may or left that albia when this v, i went to back many eco smith on the going up is. so we're talking about decades of this information and decades of delay. in the meantime, the companies are still making gobs of money. mm hm. mm

mm mm. when a scientific line has been constructed over several decades, where do the 1st cracks begin to appear? for 40 years after the 1st alerts on tobacco, somewhere in the u. s. a humble employee performed an act that would change everything. i the box he sent finally arrived in california at the university of san francisco. on that day, professor glance was in for a surprise on may 12th 1994, a box of documents landed in my office for an anonymous stores. these were internal documents from at the very highest levels of the tobacco industry. their senior scientists are senior lawyers, their senior management, their senior public relations. people talking very, very frankly about what they knew about the dangers of smoking

in this was an on hope for treasure, for the professor. it was like a new world. stumbling into a new world. sees the leaked documents increased in numbers, the truth broke. the tobacco industry bosses were cornered gentlemen. the reason disclosure of documents have shaken my confidence that your company's care about the truth. these documents suggest possible manipulation of scientific research by industrial attorney. if these things are true, then you should know that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and will not be allowed. faced with the proof at the tobacco bosses were forced to make decades of secret archive, public series like that and the collection were started out. a few 1000 pages is now up around 93000000 pages. oh,

these documents are now kept in the university of san francisco archives. they contain all the details of a massive manipulation of science. the tactics deployed, the researchers recruited and the sums of money involved. among these documents, one internal memo from 969 sums up on his own. what the tobacco industry had decided to produce doubt is our product. since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact, that it exists in the mind of the general public, it is also the means of establishing a controversy. the key strategy is the creation of doubt about science. doubt is a perfect weapon. it's effective but also pernicious because tao is legitimately part of science. in fact it to the central driver of science. we investigate things because we have questions about them because we're curious or because we doubt the existing explanation is adequate. so we need out in science, the more good it will coll directions once to help us hills book battles. yo yo

duty of this. yo. yo less guilty terribly or no. and their punk holds me collect 80 . hold on a, put a duke kelly pon don't, but i'll go enough night way with a single and golly galena, visually or brutal, had his duty somewhat. denila mentioned your pointed butler dot c. as else a mash said connie company, the 2 g victims one only made these days. don't get strategy. the duty seed of rocket barsoom shells stabbed except the 8 doubly committed uncles who measles duke . so what the tobacco industry did was to take a virtue and turning to vice the use of scientific method against science itself. that's what these documents revealed. these windfalls enthuse historians and whistleblowers. they have even inspired a new field of study avenue of you before this week. you something about the

history of tobacco? yeah, most people. okay. this is naomi roskus teaches her students to identify historical obstructions of science and science. did we know the discovery of this long history of deception has led to a new field of intellectual study and new academic field. and it's called agnew itala. gee. and that means the study of ignorance. ag no. reggie was born. now. academics attempt to unravel the main springs of our ignorance to look into what we don't know. a curious field of study. we were laughed at at 1st because people thought it was not academic to study the absence of knowledge to study ignorance. but i think people are, are laughing a bit less now and starting to be a bit worried because we sense and they realize how pervasive the problem might be, ah, what prevents us from knowing more people are asking this question encouraging

expert in ignorance, to leave their universities and speak out publicly, but over the course of this talk, oh, introduce different ways of thinking about ignorant and particularly that's phrased strategic ignorance. we're going to ask you to think about example in your own life, a strategic ignorance. although fully nebulous due to woocommerce. yep. did yos, just gather yonce is implement. she'll conic a nipple. equal book take a little who got the hush met. those of us will get no or put me at steve. murdered the young. okay. yeah. so we're now invited to look for obstacles to our knowledge . things that holds the progress of science deliberately or not. and sometimes even what we prefer not to know, unraveling all that is no small issue. that's why the study of ignorance or ag, natalia g needs to progress methodically. and it's a fascinating field of inquiry with contributions from psychology, sociology,

history, political science, cognitive science, computer science, network, science. there are lots of disciplines involved that can help us understand how ignorance is being manufactured and how we can protect ourselves against it. with this new awareness is still in its early days, but the race is on because the strategic production of ignorance continues to be perfected. to debunk it, we must often plunge into the detail of scientific practices in innovations regularly arrived on the market and with them a fair share of suspicion. are they a threat to our health and more importantly, at what dosage. that's the big question, the one that gives rise to the most terrible of battles.

one of these battles began in this laboratory one day in 1989 carlos sunshine. and anna soto are both biologists. for years they had been trying to solve the mystery of cellular proliferation and cancer. suddenly before they're very eyes, some control cells cultivated in a test tube began to proliferate. for no apparent reason. it was a real cheryl called investigation trying to find out where it came from because that is the foresee how to delay, then defy what is the source. they review each piece of lab equipment for months of suspense. and finally, they hand their culprit, the centrifuge tubes they were made of a material that should have been inert,

but wasn't the plastic used contained and dispersed a substance that acted like the hormone estrogen? girls and i were very disturbed by this finding. we thought that this was a big deal if you can find such a substance here, can it be elsewhere in toys? bottles, food containers in all the plastics that end up in the environment. and how does it affect our organism? look like history said that, um yeah, the doors. okay, let republican press hook. it was a saw hiscock boy, boy hasanti is a digital ass. if i'm all amanda, talk about the effect of product x on health is what is studied by toxicologist. the accepted rule a centuries old. it's simple and seemingly makes good sense. the effect is proportionate to the quantity absorbed. it's true for sugar. it's true for fat.

it's true for pretty much any product. according to the rules of toxicology, the dose makes the poison, which my extension means that anything below the dose isn't a poison. according to this rule of plastic with the characteristics of a hormone that ends up in a baby's mouth should impose any problem. because the quantity of synthetic estrogen ingested is tiny, true or false? this is the crux of the battle. unique styles give icons via shashana county rested in between. it becomes al event upon your experience, not fully shown as any will abattoir, boise divine. re. lexi unity, the blessed if don't come alive except a new miss winner. this has the structure. oh,

and estrogenic drug. they are using a sex or mon to make plastic. this is insane. for years professor vom sal and his team observed mice exposed to different doses of bis fina les. to measure the traces of the pro, these stored what happens at the limits of detection using ultra sensitive machines . and what they discovered took the world of science. in fact, the damage to the reproductive system was occurring at $25000.00 times below what had been considered a dose that would cause no effect. we were absolutely shocked, simplicity, and it wasn't admirable presume, hazel like present boston. don't tell it, don't cook in patsy decisions. don'ts,

but that was this, if a bruise on boston, i did those i from disney mal candy, those pre fault it bequest on boston, some promot passcode book, synchronous young animal tail dest lucidity to similarly true. i ought those in attest, shamae, extend, mahatma lena, city theaters, him when he couldn't. or those again is your muscle. i mean sure, no explicit. he saw the doors. i think this matter right now there are 2000000000 people who are overweight or obese. it's profitable to sell food that is fatty and sugary and salty and addicted is not at the individual level. it's not individual willpower. and if we go on believing that will never change this obesity epidemic, that industry has been influencing very deeply. the medical and scientific

establishment. so what's driving the obesity epidemic? it's corporate with join me every 1st on the alex simon. sure. but i'll be speaking to guess of the world politics. small business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. ah, working room or should she popped in? she said, well, i'm getting ready to go shopping for christmas. and when we say there was a girl to buy another, shooting another safe part of american life shattered by violence. the gunman was armed with an a ar 15, semi automatic rifle. when the issue comes home, it's time to act. when we're filing on this issue, the other side wins by default,

lady that lived over there. i was walking one of the dogs, which is why you where again, where you scale it doesn't play ticket often. i think the people need to take responsibility in their own and be prepared if those kinds of weapons were less available. we wouldn't have a lot of the shootings and we certainly wouldn't have the number that's a only in central london against a raft of new anti cove measures as daily infections in the u. k. reportedly reach an all time high british supreme court rules. it was unlawful to drop an inquiry into the alleged torture of 14 suspected ira members by british soldiers. one of them told us what he had to do with this constant wait lloyd.