Public Interest Research Research Articles

REPLY TO COMMENTARY—Abraham Briloff's Lonely Hearts Club Tribute Band

Abe Briloff's restriction on the scope of critical accounting research—to the “sacred covenant” of auditing—does not square with his own avowals concerning the scope of public interest research. First, the restriction excludes from public interest scrutiny many emergent areas of accounting work. Second, evidence from decades of research into professions (including accounting) provides little ground for a theocratic liberalism that places trust in “The Profession” as a reliable custodian of the public's interest. Professions are no different from other commercial institutions under capitalism. They have a checkered history in effecting public interest concerns. Sikka and Willmott offer an alternative program for critical accounting that is underwhelming in three respects. First, this program displays a limited understanding of Briloff's work. Second, absent of any comparable achievements to Briloff, Sikka and Willmott substitute an inferior product in terms of a picaresque narration of their “efforts,” “work-done,” and other process-oriented descriptions. Third, the exaggerated importance that they attach to collaborations with two Labor Members of Parliament betrays an infatuation that has the hallmark of what Marx called “Parliamentary Cretinism.”

In Epicurean Delight for Privacy Advocates

EPIC ( www.epic.org) is a public interest research centre based in Washington DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values. A project of the Fund for Constitutional Government, the EPIC website contains valuable links to many important sites dealing with the issues of privacy, liberty, free expression, human rights and consumer affairs on the Internet. EPIC works in association with Privacy International, an international human rights group based in London, and is also a member of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign, the Internet Free Expression Alliance, the Internet Privacy Coalition, and the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD). So, if you wish to learn about privacy, the First Amendment and Freedom of Information Act court cases brought by the legal team at EPIC, as well as about defending your rights in cyberspace, this site will serve as a one stop shop to educate you and address all of your concerns.

Public-interest research and development in the electric and gas utility industries

An unintended consequence of the restructuring of the electricity industry in the US has been a sharp decline in expenditures for research and development (R&D) by investor-owned utilities. This paper examines how the public interest may be damaged by this decline in R&D expenditures and discusses strategies that could be employed to mitigate the damage.

Standards for Advocacy Research

As one of the four Brooklyn College scientists who drafted the petition citing the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) for research misconduct, I would like to clarify several points in the article “Charges fly over advocacy research” by Jock Friedly (News & Comment, [7 Mar., p. 1411][1]). The issue is not whether advocacy research should be held to the same standards as those used for peer-reviewed science (our petition did not address that question), but whether the standards and procedures used are minimally sufficient to support the conclusions reported. Our petition states that NYPIRG research does not “meet accepted minimum standards.” Contrary to NYPIRG’s statement, its study of the Audi 500 car ([1][2]) contains original data [as does its landfill study ([2][3])], which as NYPIRG acknowledges in print ( 1 , p. 95), were gathered in a survey it prepared. In any case, the premise that studies without original data should be judged by lower standards than studies with such data is fallacious. Any data, original or not, can be manipulated to support a desired, albeit invalid, result. The implication of political scientist Michael Kahan that our petition was issued in lieu of publishing a rebuttal to NYPIRG’s studies is incorrect: three of the five NYPIRG studies at issue were critically examined in scholarly journals ([3][4]). The evidence developed in those publications is unassailable. For example, the analytical procedure used in NYPIRG’s recycling report ([4][5]) provides a result which, while favorable to their position, is physically impossible (its proposed recycling plants yield 3600 more tons of material daily than they take in). 1. [↵][6]T. A. Wathan and H. Caffey, Shifting the Blame: A Report on Sudden Acceleration in the Audi 500 (New York Public Interest Research Group, New York, 1987). 2. [↵][7]“What’s blowing in the wind: Preliminary findings of a health study of a community near the Fountain Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue landfills” (Toxics Project, New York Public Interest Research Group, New York, 1983). 3. [↵][8]D. E. Seidemann, Northeast. Environ. Sci. 6 , 103 (1987); Environ. Manage. 15 , 73 (1991); Buffalo Environ. Law J. 3 , 221 (1995). 4. [↵][9]W. L. Hang and S. A. Romalewski, The Burning Question: Garbage Incineration vs. Total Recycling in New York State (New York Public Interest Research Group, New York, 1986). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.275.5305.1411a [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [9]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text

Charges Fly Over Advocacy Research

Brooklyn College's science faculty has leveled what amounts to a fraud indictment against the New York Public Interest Research Group, based on what the faculty calls faulty logic in studies of recycling, SAT scores, and the Audi 5000 car. The charge, in a petition signed by 65 faculty members, raises the thorny question of whether reports by an advocacy group—even if they contain no original data—should be held to the same standards used to judge peer-reviewed science.

Clinton urged to raise fuel economy standards

In a just released report, the Sierra Club and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group call on President Bill Clinton to honor a campaign pledge to raise auto fuel economy standards to 45 miles per...

Mandatory Student Fees: First Amendment Concerns and University Discretion

The freedom to associate or not to associate with any particular idea or group has firm roots in the first amendment. Similarly, the idea that the first amendment protects abhorrent speech has a long history. Recently, these two doctrines have come into play and, at times, into apparent conflict in debates over the constitutionality of mandatory student fees at public3 universities. Universities levy fees on students in order to fund a variety of student groups and services ranging from athletics to student government to politically active student groups such as a student newspaper4 or a Public Interest Research Group (PIRG).5 In general, students pay these fees with little thought as to how the fees will be used and most students, if not all, would not withhold the money used to fund school athletics and general services. How-

A Pyramid Model for Teaching and Applying Sociology

Students actually do sociological research in the community. They self-select into secondary research, primary research, and/or experiential projects. No one is forced into the applied approach nor penalized for opting to do traditional work. For the applied projects, there is a pyramid model of successively more complex roles. Beginning at the freshman level, in Social Problems, alternative joint projects are examined. The Public Interest Research Group research designs, coming out of Nader's college-based program, are used to illustrate the kinds of things that might be explored and the possible methodologies. A special library is then set up for the applied group to enlarge their knowledge of the subject; they meet with the professor and an upper-division major who has had both social statistics and methods of research. As project coordinator, this student earns credit in Independent Study and is responsible for disseminating information to the group, conducting special sessions, assigning responsibility for segments of the job, developing a PERK chart

Children's Understanding of Using Products Safely

and product safety are increasingly important in policy decisions made by corporations, public interest groups, and government agencies.2 For example, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with setting standards for thousands of products; consumer groups, such as the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, are lobbying for various kinds of product safety legislation at the state level. In industry, various companies have taken steps to eliminate possible hazards to children, such as discontinuing vitamin advertising during TV programming designed for children. Industrial associations have encouraged self-regulation through product safety standards3 and through advertising guidelines.4 The purpose of this study is to explore agerelated differences in children's understanding of safe product use, their general attitudes about