20 Jan 2023

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern resigns

Tom Peters


In a shock announcement on Thursday, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the media she would step down from the position by February 7 and leave parliament in April.

After more than five years leading the Labour Party-led government, Ardern offered little explanation for her sudden departure, other than saying she was burnt out. “I know what this job takes, and I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice. It is that simple,” she said, adding, “I am looking forward to spending time with my family again.”

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern at press conference at parliament in Wellington, Oct. 11, 2021. [AP Photo/Robert Kitchin/Pool Photo via AP]

Ardern’s resignation apparently took most Labour politicians by surprise and has thrown the government into turmoil ahead of a national election scheduled for October. Labour MPs will meet on Sunday to try and choose a new leader, but according to the New Zealand Herald there is “no clear consensus on who should succeed Ardern.” Deputy prime minister and finance minister Grant Robertson has ruled himself out as a contender.

Ardern claimed she was “not leaving because I believe we can’t win the election, but because I believe we can and will, and we need a fresh set of shoulders for that challenge.” This is not credible. In recent months Labour has polled around 33 percent—a dramatic decline since the 2020 election when it won more than half the votes.

The opposition National Party is only polling around 38 percent, reflecting widespread hostility towards both the major capitalist parties. This is an international phenomenon: everywhere, including in the United States, Europe and Australia, voters see little difference between any of the established parties. Traditional parliamentary and two-party systems are increasingly discredited and are breaking apart under the impact of the economic crisis, soaring social inequality and class polarisation, the out-of-control pandemic and the headlong rush towards another world war.

The NZ Labour Party, under Ardern’s leadership was barely able to form a government in 2017 in a coalition with the Greens and the far-right New Zealand First. In 2020, Labour won just over 50 percent of the votes, partly due to the shambolic state of the National Party, beset by factional warfare and conflicts over foreign policy.

Wealthy areas of the country switched their support to Labour largely because of the Ardern government’s multi-billion dollar handouts to big business and the rich during the first year of the pandemic—which are now being paid for by the working class through rampant inflation and austerity measures.

To the extent that Labour was supported by the working class in 2020, it was because the government had implemented a series of lockdowns and other public health measures which kept the country almost entirely free from COVID-19. The elimination strategy was implemented out of fear of a movement developing among healthcare workers, in particular, pushing for a nationwide lockdown, outside of the pro-government trade unions.

Labour’s and Ardern’s support began falling sharply in early 2022, coinciding with a major deterioration in workers’ living standards and the government’s disastrous adoption of the homicidal policy of mass COVID-19 infection. In late 2021, the government acceded to the demands of big business to abandon its “zero COVID” policy. As a result, the death toll from COVID has surged from just 30 in October 2021 to more than 3,000. Hospitals are overwhelmed and tens of thousands of people are likely to be suffering from Long COVID.

Meanwhile, inflation is driving broad sections of the working class into poverty. In her speech yesterday Ardern said her government had “turned around child poverty statistics” and “improved the pay and conditions of workers, and shifted our settings towards a high wage, high skilled economy.” This is a lie. That same day, statistics were released showing food prices went up 11.3 percent in the past year, the biggest jump since 1990 and far outstripping wages, which increased only 3.7 percent in the year to September.

New Zealand is experiencing a severe housing crisis, with more than 102,000 homeless people in a population of 5 million—the highest rate of homelessness in the OECD. The waiting list for public housing has increased fivefold since Labour formed a coalition government in 2017 and made false promises to fix the crisis by building 100,000 “affordable” homes. Only 1,500 homes were built in five years under the Kiwibuild scheme.

Since 2018, the Ardern government has repeatedly confronted nationwide strikes by nurses, doctors and other healthcare workers, as well as teachers and firefighters, demanding decent pay and safe working conditions. These actions have been systematically shut down and sold out by the union bureaucracies, which have also worked closely with the government and big business to dismantle public health restrictions and reopen schools and workplaces.

Ardern is bailing out at precisely the point where the ruling elite is demanding a major escalation in the attacks on the working class to make it pay for the global economic crisis. Reserve Bank governor Adrian Orr has admitted that it is lifting interest rates in order to engineer a recession, to increase unemployment and drive down wages.

The implicit message contained in Ardern’s vague speech was that she does not feel up to the task of implementing this brutal agenda and confronting the resistance that will emerge in the working class. In a telling statement comparing the present period to a war, she told the media: “It’s one thing to lead your country in peace times, it’s another to lead them through [a] crisis; there’s a greater weight of responsibility.”

It also cannot be ruled out that Ardern’s resignation was prompted by pressure from New Zealand’s allies in Washington and Canberra, which are seeking a stronger commitment from Wellington to the far-advanced preparations for world war against Russia and China.

As a minor imperialist power, New Zealand is an integral part of the US-led Five Eyes intelligence network and has actively participated in the criminal US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Ardern government has sent about 200 troops to the UK and central Europe to assist with training and supplying Ukraine’s military for the US-NATO war against Russia.

Former Prime Minister John Key resigned in 2016 and his National Party government was relentlessly attacked by pro-US academics and journalists because of its promotion of stronger economic ties with China, New Zealand’s most important trading partner. Following the inconclusive 2017 election, the US ambassador publicly indicated Washington’s preference for a Labour-Greens-NZ First coalition government, which the Trump administration believed would take a stronger stance in support of the US against China.

There have been recriminations, particularly from the Australian media and foreign policy establishment, that New Zealand has refused to fall into line and continues to try and balance between the US and China. The Australian’s foreign editor Greg Sheridan writes today that under Ardern “New Zealand was a tiny, frightened mouse when it came to Beijing.” He complains that “her government did nothing to revive New Zealand’s substantially non-existent defence forces.”

In general, however, the international media greeted Ardern’s resignation with an outpouring of praise, tinged with anxiety. The Washington Post called her “an inspiration to women around the world.” The New York Times described her as “a global emblem of anti-Trump liberalism.”

Former US secretary of state and war criminal Hilary Clinton hailed Ardern “for guiding her country with strength, compassion, and grace through multiple historic crises, doubtless saving countless lives.” She did not mention New Zealand’s disastrous adoption of the same “let it rip” COVID policy that has killed more than 1.2 million people in the US.

In the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calls Ardern “a true leader” who “reminded us all that kindness and strength are not mutually exclusive.”

He praised Ardern, in particular, for her response to the March 15, 2019 terrorist attack in Christchurch, in which fascist gunman Brenton Tarrant massacred 51 people at two mosques. “I will always carry in my mind that image of Jacinda in a headscarf, offering the embrace of a nation to a community stricken by grief and fear,” Albanese said.

In fact, the response of both the Australian and New Zealand governments to the Christchurch atrocity was to whitewash the role of the police and intelligence agencies, which did not prevent the attack despite multiple warnings about Tarrant. Since then, Ardern has exploited the events of March 15 to justify the expansion of the intelligence agencies, and has led an international campaign to censor the internet in the name of combating “extremism.”

Over the past five years, Ardern has been relentlessly glorified in the world’s media, for being a woman, then for having a baby while serving as prime minister, and later for her response to the 2019 terror attack and the pandemic.

Commenting on this phenomenon following the election in October 2020, the WSWS noted that New Zealand was falsely portrayed “as an exception, a beacon of hope and a haven from the chaos sweeping the planet. The aim is to persuade working people that the colossal problems they face can be resolved within the present system if only ‘kind’ and ‘compassionate’ leaders like Ardern are elected.”

As we predicted, these illusions could not be sustained in the face of the ruthless pro-business restructuring carried out by the Ardern government. The entire charade has been fundamentally undermined by the worsening social crisis, the out-of-control pandemic and the growing militarisation of New Zealand society under her government.

In New Zealand, the Labour Party’s middle class liberal and pseudo-left supporters have been thrown into despair. The “left-wing” Daily Blog editor Martyn Bradbury called Ardern “one of the best leaders Labour has had” and declared: “This is a terrible blow to the Political Left. We will be in shock for some time.”

Like many media pundits, he blamed Ardern’s decision to quit on “toxic attacks on Jacinda personally that the Right have whipped up”—without mentioning that Labour emboldened the extreme right, firstly through its alliance with the racist and anti-immigrant NZ First, and then its adoption of all the far-right demands for letting COVID rip.

Dougal McNeill, a leading member of the International Socialist Organisation, which supported Labour in the last several elections, similarly wrote on Twitter: “The (misogynist, vile) hatred for Ardern was against all that was her best, a world away from the radical left’s criticisms of her limits. That’s why today, thinking about going hard early on COVID & showing solidarity after the Christchurch massacre, I feel, yes, sadness.”

These statements echo former Labour Party Prime Minister Helen Clark, who told the media “Jacinda has faced a level of hatred and vitriol which in my experience is unprecedented in our country.” The right-wing Māori Party, which is positioning itself as an ally of Labour, similarly issued a statement declaring that Ardern was “driven from office [by] constant personalisation and vilification.”

The aim of all such commentary is to divert attention from the fact that Ardern led the most right-wing, pro-business government in recent memory, which is carrying out historic attacks on the working class. Whatever the immediate outcome of the leadership crisis in the Labour Party, this agenda will only intensify.

19 Jan 2023

Government of Flanders Mastermind Scholarships 2023/2024

Application Deadline: 28th April 2023 GMT+1

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Various universities in Belgium

  • KU Leuven / University of Leuven
  • University of Antwerp
  • Ghent University
  • Hasselt University
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel

University colleges (Arts and Nautical Sciences)

  • Antwerp Maritime Academy
  • Artesis Plantijn University College Antwerp
  • Erasmus University College Brussels
  • Karel de Grote University College
  • LUCA School of Arts
  • PXL University College
  • University College Ghent

Eligible Field of Study: The program holds for all study areas.

About Government of Flanders Mastermind Scholarships: The programme aims to promote the internationalization of the Flemish Higher Education, as stated in the Action Plan for Student Mobility, Brains on the Move (September 2013).

Students cannot apply directly. Applications need to be submitted by the Flemish host institution.

Students should not combine this scholarship with another scholarship from the Flemish government or an Erasmus Mundus Scholarship.

Offered Since: 2015

Type: Masters

Eligibility for Government of Flanders Mastermind Scholarships: The Flemish host institution applies on behalf of the student.

General eligibility requirements

  • The applicant applies to take up a Master degree programme at a higher education institution in Flanders (hereafter ‘Flemish host institution’).
  • The applicant should have a high standard of academic performance and/or potential. He/she meets all academic entrance criteria, including relevant language requirements, for entering the Master programme in question offered by the Flemish host institution.
  • All nationalities can apply. The previous degree obtained should be from a higher education institution located outside Flanders.
  • Students who are already enrolled in a Flemish higher education institution cannot apply.

Selection: A Flemish selection committee awards the scholarships, in cooperation with the Flemish Department of Education and Training.

Number of Awardees: 20 per university

Value of Government of Flanders Mastermind Scholarships: The incoming student is awarded a scholarship of maximum €8000,- per academic year.

Duration of Scholarship: The duration of mobility is minimum 1 academic year and maximum the full duration of the master programme. If the student obtains less than 45 ECTS in the first year, then he/she loses the scholarship in the second year.

How to Apply for Government of Flanders Mastermind Scholarships: 

  • You can find more information in the guidelines for application in the Scholarship Webpage link.
  • You need to contact the Flemish higher education institution to inquire about their internal selection procedures and deadline for submitting the application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

FAO-Hungarian Government Scholarship 2023/2024

Application Deadline: 28th February 2023

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Residents (who must be nationals) of the following countries are eligible to apply for the Scholarship Programme:

Afghanistan, Albania, AlgeriaAngola, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, ChadEgyptEthiopiaGambia, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo1, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, North Macedonia, MadagascarMali, Myanmar, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, NamibiaNigeria, North Korea, State of Palestine, the Philippines, Republic of Cabo Verde, Serbia, SomaliaSouth SudanSudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.

To be taken at (University): The following universities in Europe are participating:

  • Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Buda Campus, Budapest

FAO-Hungarian Government Scholarship Fields of Study: The following Master of Science degree courses are being offered in English for the 2023-24 Academic YearFood safety and quality engineering (Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences)

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Candidates will be selected on the basis of the following criteria:

  • Citizenship and residency of one of the eligible countries
  • Excellent school achievements
  • English language proficiency (for courses taught in English)
  • Motivation
  • Good health
  • Age (candidates under 30 are preferred)

Selection Procedure: The FAO-Hungarian Government Scholarship selection process as described below applies to scholarships beginning in September 2023.

Student selection will take place in two phases:

  • Phase 1: FAO will pre-screen candidates and submit applications to the Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary that will send them to the corresponding University as chosen by the 2 applicants. Students must submit only COMPLETED dossiers. Incomplete dossiers will not be considered. Files without names will not be processed.
  • Phase 2: Selected candidates may be asked to take a written or oral English examination as part of the admission procedure. The participating Universities will run a further selection process and inform each of the successful candidates. Student selection will be made by the Universities only, without any involvement on the part of FAO. Selected students will also be notified by the Ministry.

Number of Awardees: Courses will be offered provided the minimum number of students is reached.

Value of FAO-Hungarian Government Scholarship: The scholarship covers student costs only; family members are not supported within the frame of this programme.

The scholarship will cover:

  • application and tuition fees throughout the study period with basic books and notes;
  • dormitory accommodation;
  • subsistence costs;
  • health insurance.

How to Apply for FAO-Hungarian Government Scholarship: Interested applicants should prepare a dossier to be sent by E-MAIL (to REU-Scholarship@fao.org) consisting of:

  • Application form duly completed
  • A recent curriculum vitae
  • A copy of high school/college diploma and transcript/report of study or copy of the diploma attachment
  • A copy of certificate of proficiency in English
  • Copies of relevant pages of passport showing expiration date and passport number
  • A letter of recommendation
  • Statement of motivation
  • Health Certificate issued by Medical Doctor
  • Certificate of Good Conduct issued by local police authority.

All submitted documents must be in ENGLISH. Documents submitted in any other language will not be accepted. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that documents are duly translated and certified by a competent office; and that each document is saved with a name that identifies what it is.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Five Corporate Strategies to Manipulate Science

Thomas Klikauer



Art by Nick Rooney

Ever since the rise of capitalism and corporations, the manipulation of science has been at the centre of the endeavors of big companies and corporations – like those related to tobacco, asbestos, chemical, pharma, sugar, fast food, and oil and gas. This is a threat to human existence as well as planet earth.

For decades, large profit-making corporations have been very busy in obscuring the harm they and their products cause to human health and to our planet.

One of the key instruments in their fight against nature – and us – has been a staunch and prolonged rejection of any sort of state regulation – often built around the ideology of neoliberalism and the ever illusive (nobody has actually ever seen it!) free market that “takes care” of everything.

Yet, what corporations do, actually reaches far beyond by simply taking part in the beloved free market – it reaches deep into the influencing of science. There are about four core instruments that corporations and their henchmen like corporate lawyers, corporate PR agencies, and lobbying organisations use to – often pretty successfully – manipulate science – and quite often rather indirectly.

All too often these corporations work behind the scenes in governmental committee rooms, research funding agencies, state and ministerial offices, and the like. These four instruments are:

1) the manipulation of scientific methods to pre-determine research outcomes;

2) he reshaping of criteria that establish what scientific proof actually is;

3) direct and indirect threats against independent scientists and scholars; and finally,

4) the promotion of policies that increase the reliance on industry-generated “evidence”.

These and other corporate methods are used to create misinformation and – more importantly – deliberate disinformation. Some of these methods are designed to create doubt in the minds of the general public. They serve as corporate propaganda – now called Public Relation.

Yet, the purpose of manipulating science is also to foster ignorance, to block out knowledge of the harms that products and corporate practices create – while simultaneously claiming to have a good ethics code, and corporate social responsibility provisions. Of course, what corporations do is often in stark opposition to what environmental science tells us.

Even the otherwise pro-corporate CNN had to – finally – admit on the 12th of January 2023 what many knew alreadyExxon accurately predicted global warming from the 1970s – but continued to cast doubt on climate science. Exxon too, has a rather beautifully crafted code of ethics and sustainability report.

Beyond all that, the corporate manipulation of science also extends to occupational and public health regulations – particularly when it jeopardizes corporate profits and power.

Today, we see an unprecedented level of corporate funded science. Worse, this has been strongly growing in recent years. Perhaps it signifies Upton Sinclair’s time honoured dictum that,

it is difficult to get a man to understand something

when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

To fight science, corporations often use very distinctive (dis)information strategies involving corporately funded science. It eliminates the Humboldtian idea that universities, science, and scientific instrument should be free of corporate-political influence.

Instead, the scientific process should be independent of outside interference. We have known this for a very long time. In fact, ever since Galileo Galilei, we know that science works best if the external power elite remains very distant.

Science should not be driven and financed by corporations. Worse, corporate-shaped science is often sold as “independent” research by the apparatchiks of corporate PR.

Such corporate PR strategies are mostly used by eight corporate sectors: alcohol; chemicals and manufacturing; extractive industries (e.g. mining); fast food and sugar drinks; fossil fuels (oil & gas); gambling; pharmaceuticals (Big Pharma) and medical technologies; as well as the most infamous tobacco corporations causing the death of millions of people.

These are no small fish. Instead, the manipulators of science are more often than not, large multi-national corporations. In the food and drink industry, for example, these companies and corporations include confectionery, sugar-sweetened beverages, breakfast cereals, meat, infant formula, food additives, and dietary supplements.

In any case, corporations use five key strategies to manipulate science and the use of science in policy and practice.

1. The Manipulation of Science

The first strategy used in the corporate manipulation of science is about influencing the conduct and publication of science to skew evidence in industry’s favour. This means the corporate manipulation of the conduct and publication of scientific evidence. It is done in an attempt to pre-empt or refute independent science which challenges corporations and their products.

One of the key aims is to distract attention away from independent evidence that threatens the profits – and in some cases, even – the future of a corporation. To secure profitability and their existence, corporations also use what they call “safe research” (read: their research) to promote corporate-favoured interventions.

It draws on a favourite ideology of neoliberalism: industry self-regulation. The idea is to smokescreen the true goal of corporations: the creation of ineffective (read: no or pro-business) regulation.

Besides giving corporations a free hand by eliminating regulation (the much-hated red tape), the second goal is to prevent mandatory regulation of industry. State regulation is feared by corporations like the plague.

Yet, corporations go to extreme length in preventing science to come to the forth. Tobacco corporation Philip Morris once even ordered a lead scientist to actually close down his laboratory, to kill the animals, to suspend all further investigation; never try to publish or discuss his work; and to find work elsewhere.

If this fails, there is always the cherry-picking of scientific papers for the inclusion or exclusion of evidence. In addition, corporations also use access, funding, and political power in order to manipulate and to undermine research conducted by truly independent organisations. These are often state-funded research organisations set up independently from corporate influence.

In any case, the ideology of neoliberalism provides a rather helpful tool for much of this, as it advocates the elimination of the state regulation in favour of the free market (no regulation). Once the free market (read: corporations) runs science, independent research goes out the window and Coca Cola becomes a health drink – miraculously.

Yet, when research conducted independently proves to be challenging to corporations, corporations and their PR agencies also put in place strategies to control access to science. In one incidence, a pharmaceutical corporation was found to be threatening legal action against researchers who attempt to publish critical results.

2. Manipulating the Interpretation of Science

The second strategy of the corporate manipulation of science seeks to influence the interpretation of scientific data and results. This is designed to undermine unfavourable science and create a distorted picture of the evidence. The corporate challenge to science is often euphemistically framed as “sound science”.

The strategy also involves raw data to be “re-analysed” from unfavourable science in order to undercut it. This extends deep by assaulting scientific findings and the deliberate misrepresentation of scientific evidence.

In the PR battle over science, this remains a useful strategy because it challenges adverse scientific findings that implicate products and manufacturing practices that cause harm to human beings and the environment.

A far more direct strategy is the direct attack on scientists and scientific bodies. Here, the corporate goal is to weaken any opposition to corporate-sponsored crypto-science.

3. Manipulating the Reach of Science

The third corporate strategy is to manipulate the reach of science. This can be done via so-called echo chambers inside which corporations can propagate corporate-sponsored science.

The goal is to create an “echo chamber effect” whereby corporations develop a communicative space in which favourable science, and its messaging about “their” science is widely disseminated and amplified. Simultaneously, unfavourable evidence is hidden or isolated.

Echo chambers give the wrong impression that there is a multitude of corporate-friendly messages and voices that represent science. Suddenly, corporate institutions such as, for example, front groups created by industry (astrofurfing), third-party organisations like corporate think tanks, so-called professional associations (read: lobbying), and corporations PR firms, etc., all seemingly push the same (corporate) version of science. Often, such appearances are enhanced by so-called “experts” set up by allied industries.

4. Public Relation

The fourth strategy is to create a corporate-friendly public policy environment capable of shaping the use of science in policy decision made in favour of corporations. British American Tobacco, for example, invented a PR campaign called “Better Regulation” or “Smart Regulation” with the goal of getting pro-business regulation put in place.

The key idea behind this was to make it harder to pass public health policies which can counter the interest of corporations. It gives highly resourced and well-financed corporations an opportunity to slow down, weaken, or – ideally – prevent public health policy that saves lives (e.g. OHS) but was bad for corporate profits.

5. Trust Corporate Science

The final and fifth strategy is the manufacturing of trust in corporate research while simultaneously engineering distrust in research findings that challenge corporations. The gist behind this strategy is to create the aura of legitimacy around corporations and their science. In other words, corporations manufacture trust in themselves and their semi-scientific findings.

Corporations do this by, for example, directly funding of academics. More often, it is done through a so-called “independent agency”. The apparatchiks that run universities like to call this: industry partnerships or third-party funding.

Here is the trick. In deliberately cash-starved universities – as supported by the free market ideology of neoliberalism – this is done by offering generous research grants, honoraria, awards, and lucrative so-called “consulting” fees.

Meanwhile, students can be enticed to work for corporations by offering lavish scholarships. The ideological goal of all this is to normalize the corporate presence in science, universities, and academia.

It creates dependence on corporations and corporately funded research. Money – not curiosity – becomes the driver of science. Here are three examples on how this works:

Berkeley, for example, received $50 million from Novartis – a Swiss pharmaceutical corporation, i.e. Big Pharma.

+ Worse, ExxonMobil contributed to the $225m Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University.

+ Still even more worse, tobacco corporation Philip Morris even created its very own Worldwide Scientific Affairs Programme.

In any case, based on these five key strategies, one can see that the corporate manipulation of science and scientific evidence reaches far beyond a handful of corporate-corrupt actors working nefariously to skew evidence. Generally, these five strategies of the corporate manipulation of science have three overall goals:

1) they seek to create doubt about the potential harms of the products of corporations, their practices (environmentally harmful manufacturing, for example), and about policies that might reduce sales and corporate profitability;

2) these strategies also promote corporate policy responses and techno-solutionism to complex problems – often, these problems are created by corporations in the first place; and finally,

3) it seeks to legitimize the role of corporations as valued stakeholders in science and society. This is geared to what German philosopher Habermas once called the colonization of the lifeworld, i.e. the infection of previously non-commercial areas of society (like science) with the ideological virus of commerce, i.e. money and profits

Most disturbing is actually not just the scale and consistency of the corporate manipulation of science, but that this extends beyond influencing the production, credibility, and reach of science.

In other words, corporate manipulation has taken on a political momentum. This is camouflaged by the neoliberal fairy-tale that the economy and politics are neatly separated.

Covered by this ideology, corporations and their henchmen – corporate lobbyists, PR firms, industry funding bodies, astroturfing, etc. – play a rather active role in the manipulative shaping of science, research policies, and actual scientific practices. This has far-reaching implications.

Potentially one possible solution might be – as introduced in Italy, California, and Thailand – is the setting up of a levy, particularly on pharmaceutical, tobacco, alcohol, fast food, oil & gas, etc. corporations, to be used to fund independent research on their harmful products and their destruction of the natural environment.