local
Stacy Bettison
Stacy L. Bettison, Esq. is the owner of Bettison Consulting LLC, a strategic communications and media relations firm. She has honed an expert blend of communications, business and legal acumen developed over 15 years as a communications strategist and attorney. She's a trusted confidant and strategist for her clients, helping them manage worst-case scenarios, must-win moments and everything in between.
resize text 
subscribe via RSS
Climate change skeptic’s about-face: conviction and ego left behind
Posted by: Stacy Bettison under Business, Society, Education and literacy, Politics Updated: August 7, 2012 - 8:23 AM
Richard Muller, professor of physics at University of California Berkeley, recently declared himself a “converted skeptic” on the matter of climate change. This news caused me to reflect on what it takes to undertake a public about-face as Professor Muller recently did.
Muller had been a vocal critic of the scientific research suggesting the Earth is warming and that it is human-caused. His announcement last week that his own research shows global warming is the result of carbon emissions required courage to leave conviction and ego behind.
Conviction must give way to flexibility. The ability to blaze intellectual trails requires ample mental space. To understand the world better, we must set aside ideological convictions to consider new information, especially evidence that directly contradicts those beliefs.
“The Earth is flat” is one of many ideas in history that proved wrong—a development made possible when leading minds allowed conviction to give way to scientific research and observation.
Muller was not a zealot on the matter of climate change. Rather, his previous stance on global warming arose from his misgivings about the previous research supporting the occurrence of human-caused global warming.
Yet, he didn’t let his convictions that the science was flawed limit his thinking on the issue. In fact, he did the opposite: he conducted his own research focused on the flaws he spotted in existing climate change models, sought additional information, and tested his own models.
His skepticism caused him to inquire further and dig deeper: “I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered” writes Muller.
Flexibility allows principled, set-in-stone thinking to be aside so innovative thinking can then flourish. It is the essence of intellectual curiosity and a requirement for advancing our understanding of the world.
To “see the light” requires humility. Whether through physics, congressional hearings or focus groups, the study of new information must also be done with a degree of humility. Long-held beliefs may be proven wrong if we are open-minded enough to let them.
The well-known story of Saul on the road to Damascus, used frequently to describe this phenomenon in secular contexts, underscores the point. “Armed with full powers and a commission from the chief priests” with the intention to bring back Christians from Damascus to Jerusalem for punishment, Saul came to “see the light.” Saul was humbled, and thereafter became one of the most significant early Christian leaders as Paul the Apostle.
Whether in the New York Times or in the board room, a changed position will nearly always attract a vocal cast of critics making charges of flip-flopping, indecisiveness and even deception. The rotten tomatoes come with the job, but can be deflected with clear, concise communications as to the basis for the change.
New information evolves our thinking, and evolved thinking means we change our minds.
Follow Stacy on Twitter -- @StacyBettison
FDA’s BPA Ban: Little change for consumers, a band-aid for industry
Posted by: Stacy Bettison under Business, Children, Industry, Government Updated: July 23, 2012 - 1:52 PMNo longer will parents wonder if the bottles and sippy cups their precious little ones suck and slurp all day are wreaking havoc on their children’s developing reproductive systems.
The FDA settled the matter in last week’s announcement that U.S. manufacturers of such products may no longer use polycarbonate resins containing bisphenol-A (BPA), which some research indicates may disrupt development of reproductive and nervous systems in babies and children. The FDA issued the ban in response to the American Chemistry Council’s petition that sought the ban because manufacturers had “intentionally and permanently abandoned” BPA’s use.
For baby bottles and sippy cups, parents technically haven’t had to worry safety for years, beginning when manufacturers agreed to stop using BPA at the behest of the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware and New Jersey in October 2008.
What’s in it for consumers? The FDA’s decision is viewed by many as symbolic and expected to have little impact on the marketplace and consumers.
What’s in it for the BPA industry? The bigger, more subtle impact may be seen by chemical manufacturers who hope the ban will limit the collateral damage that has come to BPA with the negative publicity associated with baby bottles and sippy cups.
BPA by the billions. Every year, 2 billion pounds of BPA are manufactured/imported in U.S., and 1 million pounds are released into the environment. BPA is used in manufacturing polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, and nearly every industry in the United States uses it.
People are believed to be exposed primarily through food packaging, which only accounts for less than 5% of total BPA production. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, BPA is a reproductive, developmental and systemic toxicant, and as such there are questions and concerns about potential effects even at low doses or concentrations.
Little change for consumers. The new rule will not necessarily improve safety or impact consumer buying habits for these products. BPA will remain in other food contact materials because the agency supports the safety of BPA for products that hold food. While some see this as a positive step, the basis for the ban was abandoned use, not safety.
The FDA issued the rule because its own regulations allow it to ban a food additive that is no longer in use. Mark Gardner, an attorney at DuVal & Associates whose practice focuses on FDA law, says “The FDA’s job is to protect consumers. If a chemical is no longer used in a certain application, and is even banned in China, then the FDA wants to follow suit. This is a layup for the agency. The PR fallout of not banning it in this case could have been an issue for the agency.
Industry cuts its losses. Why would the ACC seek to ban a chemical it promotes? The ACC is the chemical industry’s largest trade association, and it’s Polcycarbonate/BPA Global Group “promotes the business interests and general welfare of the polycarbonate and bisphenol A (BPA) industry.” The shots that BPA has taken over baby bottles and sippy cups may have caused enough pain for broader BPA industry that the ACC determined it was time to remove the gangrenous limb.
The ACC issued this excerpted news release and statement following the FDA's ban: “Although governments around the world continue to support the safety of BPA in food contact materials, confusion about whether BPA is used in baby bottles and sippy cups had become an unnecessary distraction to consumers, legislators and state regulators . . . . FDA action on this request now provides certainty that BPA is not used to make the baby bottles and sippy cups on store shelves, either today or in the future.”
State legislative and regulatory actions across the country had contributed to confusion about whether baby bottles and sippy cups sold in the United States contain BPA.
Two potential upsides for industry. The BPA industry may benefit in at least two ways from the new ban:
1. States will stop beating the dead horse. First, state legislative bodies will no longer need to pass laws banning BPA now that the FDA has acted. This means no more legislative hearings, no more testimony and scientific evidence about the potential toxicity of BPA and no more media reports involving BPA, babies and baby bottles. A very good thing for the chemical industry.
2. No more need to be “BPA-free.” Second, the ban could ultimately mean an end to the ubiquitous “BPA-free” on every baby bottle and sippy cup sold in the U.S. This, along with an end to the extensive information about BPA by manufacturers at websites may help industry by reducing marketplace saturation suggesting BPA is something to be “free” of.
BPA still has baggage. The baby bottle ban, however, does not end the industry’s challenges. Environmental and health advocacy groups, government regulators and industry will continue to hash out whether BPA should be removed from other food contact materials, including baby formula containers.
What’s more, BPA continues to undergo review and study from governmental agencies, including the EPA, who is studying the effect of BPA on aquatic species, how BPA enters the environment and how to reduce BPA release and exposures.
ACC has devoted considerable resources to inform and educate the public about the safety and necessity of BPA, as can be seen from a quick preview of the ACC-sponsored websites devoted to BPA safety and benefits: http://factsaboutbpa.org, http://www.bisphenol-a.org/index.html, http://www.plasticsinfo.org/.
By removing this singular occurrence of BPA from the consumer consciousness, the ACC might be able to limit the pervasive message that BPA is potentially harming children and more effectively support and promote BPA production and use.
Follow Stacy on Twitter -- @StacyBettison
Cussing from the stump: lob a bomb or keep it clean?
Posted by: Stacy Bettison under Society, Government, Politics Updated: July 12, 2012 - 7:56 AMThe recent Associated Press story covering a rash of obscenities uttered by East Coast politicians caught my attention because the swearing was deliberate and spoken in public, G-rated settings.
Our culture is certainly familiar with (and usually forgiving of) the slip-of-the-tongue, heat-of-the-moment swearing. Indeed, many (if not most) people swear. Some more than others, some more often they’d like to admit, and some only in the most extreme circumstances. Linguists note the human tendency to swear has been around as long as any we’ve had voice boxes -- vulgarities are depicted in writings going back 5,000 years and oral traditions likely included similar indecencies. With media reporting in Twitter time, however, we are likely to see more reports of these accidental and spontaneous utterances by politicians.
Politicos cussing with malice aforethought, however, presents a very different issue: will our culture tolerate the intentional use of vulgar language by politicians in civic discourse? What adequately justifies, if anything does, profane speech in a civic context—an overall coarsening of popular culture from reality-TV and social media? A desire to appear as and connect with the “average Joe?”
More reasons than not to keep it clean. While profanities may elicit a positive, rah-rah response from some, far more reasons exist against lobbing obscenities at G-rated crowds.
1. We expect more and better from public figures. While few can deny having uttered an occasional expletive, the electorate holds public officials and politicians to higher standards. They are expected to behave, speak well, be proper, act morally and ethically, do good, and above all, represent the best for the people. Swearing in public fulfills none of these expectations.
2. There are other words and ways to achieve the communications objective. If the communications objective is to express an idea with particular flair, emphasis or emotion, the English language contains approximately 750,000 words to choose from. Here presents an opportunity to be selective with the vast choices and engage the audience with smart, thoughtful words.
If the objective is to appear authentic and to develop a strong connection with the audience, plain, simple English works just fine -- especially when backed with authenticity in motive and spirit. There is no better way to appear authentic than by being authentic.
3. Foul language is not a reputation enhancer. Cussing on the stump is unlikely to engender a more favorable opinion of politicians by the American people. Generally speaking, politicians need to rehabilitate their damaged reputations – not conduct themselves in a manner that causes further degradation. Indeed, polls show that a vast majority of Americans think politicians focus on the wrong thing (swear words, perhaps?) and a majority have little or no confidence in the men and women who seek or hold elected office. Politicians would do well to consider the linguistic tactics that serve to build and strengthen their standing in the communities in which they serve.
4. Non-profane word choices will promote civility towards others. No doubt, politics have never been nastier. As such, there’s never been a better time to start promoting civility towards each other by careful and thoughtful word choices. The civility that is reflected to us by our politicians might just have a positive impact on the civility that the citizenry extends to one another.
Consider civic discourse if the U.K. Parliament House of Commons courtesies and conventions:
. . . Members should not be addressed as 'you' but should be referred to as 'the honourable Member for [constituency]', 'my honourable friend' or 'the honourable Member opposite'. Privy Councillors are 'Right Honourable'…..
While the British Parliament is not without its own challenges, the labels assigned to colleagues and rivals matter. For example, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie may be a gifted public speaker, but his public label of a lawmaker as “one arrogant S.O.B.” leaves room for improvement.
I’m not naively suggesting that if politicians followed the U.K. Parliament conventions and courtesies, American politics suddenly would become civil and pleasant. After all, the British Parliament in practice is not a model of civility and decorum, with speakers regularly and openly heckled by their opponents. But the ability to convey acrid criticisms while avoiding unparliamentary language is a point of pride for the Brits—as Winston Churchill famously used the phrase “terminological exactitude” to mean “lie.”
The House of Commons convention that encourages responsible free speech exemplifies what is lacking at times in American political discourse:
Members should bear in mind Erskine May's dictum that "good temper and moderation are the characteristics of Parliamentary language". It is important that exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech is tempered with responsibility.
Lincoln, Kennedy, and Regan are remembered as great communicators because their words inspired and uplifted the civic discourse and their speech echoes in the American consciousness long after they have gone.
Perhaps the Honorable Governor from New Jersey and his cussing brethren may consider how their oratory will be remembered, if at all, and find value in bringing back some good temper and moderation to future public discourse.
Follow Stacy on Twitter -- @StacyBettison
Glaxo’s new notoriety: $3b in criminal fines, an apology and a vow to do better
Posted by: Stacy Bettison under Business, Businesses in hot water, Health care, Crime, Government Updated: July 11, 2012 - 9:08 PMOn Monday, July 2, 2012, GlaxoSmithKline pled guilty to 3 misdemeanor criminal counts and settled civil liabilities concerning prescription drugs Paxil, Wellbutrin and Avandia. GSK and its CEO have done well to respond with contrition and a commitment to make things right.
- GSK unlawfully marketed the wildly popular Paxil to children and adolescents, which had FDA approval to treat depression only for adults. While GSK was targeting children, Paxil was flying off the shelves: Paxil sales surpassed $1.8 billion in both 2001 and 2002. It became one of the top 10 selling drugs and for a time the most commonly used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
- Wellbutrin, approved as an antidepressant, was unlawfully marketed as a wonder drug for weight loss and sexual dysfunction. Carmen Ortiz, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, said GSK hired a “public relations firm to create a buzz about getting skinny and how you could have more sex simply by using this drug.”
- For Avandia, a diabetes drug, GSK failed to provide certain safety data to the FDA so the agency could determine if the drug continues to be safe for its approved indications.
America is more medicated and spending more money on prescription drugs than ever before. The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control indicates that prescription use by children and adults is on the rise, and spending for prescription drugs was $234.1 billion in 2008 -- more than double what was spent in 1999. When a company like GSK is selling more drugs to more people, using fraud to sell even more drugs looks downright greedy– all at the expense of sick and suffering Americans.
Apologize, Be Visionary and Clean House. GSK was no doubt braced for the government to make a public spectacle of the ordeal and issue a tongue-lashing. GSK responded the right way and made little attempt to minimize or recharacterize what it did. Indeed, there is no “positive” about a $3 billion criminal and civil fine (unless you’re the government). The penalty is so enormous and the conduct so egregious, attempting to do anything but accept full responsibility would be wholly inconsistent with GSK’s guilty plea and settlement.
Here’s how GSK responded:
1. Press release. While a wordy headline makes no mention of “fraud” or “criminal” (nor is there an expectation that it would), GSK puts the $3 billion out front: “GlaxoSmithKline concludes previously announced agreement in principle to resolve multiple investigations with US Government and numerous states; Final settlement of $3bn covered by existing legal provisions announced in November 2011. Fundamental changes to US compliance, marketing and selling procedures implemented in recent years.”
2. CEO Statement (within press release):
- Apology. CEO Andrew Witty was apologetic, expressed regret and his intention to act in the interest of patients. Anything short of a full scale, unequivocal apology would have been viewed as insufficient, even offensive.
- Distance between alleged conduct and CEO’s tenure. Witty distanced GSK’s past bad acts by noting they “originate in a different era for the company,” but acknowledged that they “cannot and will not be ignored.” Witty became CEO in 2008 – most of the alleged conduct occurred between 1999-2007.
- Focus on patients. Witty shared his vision for that GSK’s culture focus on patients, be transparent and act with integrity.
- Corrective actions. Witty’s statement outlined what GSK is doing to fix the problems. This is critical information because the American public (and government) must be assured that GSK is cleaning house, reviewing and changing policies, and removing employees who don’t perform as expected.
- Bringing innovation to market in compliance with regulations. Witty acknowledged the unique role GSK has in bringing innovation medicine to market in compliance with government rules and standards.
3. Corporate Integrity Agreement. GSK entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement as part of its settlement with the government. Under this agreement, GSK is required to change its executive compensation program so the company may recoup annual bonuses and long-term incentives from covered executives if they, or their subordinates, engage in significant misconduct. Among other things, the agreement also requires GSK to implement and maintain transparency in its research practices and publication policies.
4. GSK Corporate Responsibility Reports. Visit GSK’s website, and you’ll see its beautifully prepared and substantively rich 2011 Corporate Responsibility Report featured on the home page. The company has an archive of CR reports dating back to 2002. Any organization anticipating a high-profile matter with negative publicity should ensure that all the important contributions of the company, particularly in areas of corporate social responsibility, are prominently highlighted and easily accessible.
GSK will no doubt emerge from underneath this black cloud quickly. As the world’s second largest drug company, it has tremendous resources to repair the damage and ensure something of this scale doesn’t happen again. The company and its CEO have engendered tremendous goodwill in the effort to reach the world’s poorest, most neglected populations. This bank of goodwill, coupled with what appears to be a genuine desire to do what’s right, will move GSK and its customers forward.
Follow Stacy on Twitter -- @StacyBettison.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Newspaper Subscriptions
eEdition
RSS
Newsletters