industry & research
campusreview.com.au
Truth decay
The tactics used by big business
to influence research.
By Loren Smith
D
r Alice Fabbri has never accepted
industry money for research,
nor have any of her colleagues
at the Evidence, Policy and Influence
Collaborative within USYD’s Charles
Perkins Centre. The postdoctoral research
fellow is therefore well-placed to illuminate
‘truth decay’ – a phenomenon that can
arise from this. Indeed, she has: in a
paper published in the American Journal
of Public Health.
Together with her co-authors, she
examined the impact of funding from the
tobacco, pharmaceutical, food, mining,
chemical and alcohol companies on
public health research, via a review of
36 studies on this topic.
Their conclusion? That 19 of the studies
showed a tendency toward outcomes that
could be commercialised. Fabbri explained
this further. “The medical industry tends
to fund research on products with the
potential to generate high incomes, such
as drugs and devices.
“Meanwhile, food industry-sponsored
research typically focuses on single
nutrients rather than dietary patterns,
allowing companies to market
manufactured products containing certain
nutrients as beneficial to health.
“Neither are necessarily in the best
interests of individuals or society, and
potentially limits the scope of public health
policies derived from this research.”
By this, she means that the studies in
themselves aren’t necessarily tainted;
18
it’s just that they can paint a myopic,
commercially oriented research picture
of a given area, which can influence
government policy as a result.
“This, in turn, can affect the health of
our population,” she said. “That’s the key
message of our paper.”
She and her colleagues also analysed
seven studies that, in turn, examined
internal memos from the tobacco, alcohol,
sugar and mining industries. They revealed
tactics used by these industries to
influence research, including “establishing
research agendas that support industry
policy positions and protect industry
from litigation, as well as disseminating
industry research agendas by engaging
non-industry stakeholders through
conferences, committees and other
joint initiatives”.
The review also included studies that
explored researchers’ experiences and
perceptions of the influence of industry
funding on research agendas. There were
mixed views on the role industry should
play in shaping research agendas, which
tended to be aligned with the acceptance
of industry funding or not.
A blatant and widely known example of
a company that uses research to support
its enterprise is Coca-Cola.
Another study (exposing Coca-Cola’s
profit-driven research in Spain) also
uncovered its potential contradiction
with public health policies. Out of
20 Coca‑Cola-funded studies, 14 found
that a lack of physical activity was the main
cause of obesity. This is at odds with the
established, government-supported view
that a person’s consumption holds the
most weight in this respect.
Its author, Dr Juan Rey-López, said
this contains a lesson for Australia,
which “has not implemented a sugar
tax despite recommendations from the
World Health Organization”.
USYD study co-author, Professor
Lisa Bero, said Australia – and the rest of
the world – needs to do more to ensure its
research isn’t tainted by big business. She
advocates for the expansion of disclosure
policies, an increase in independent
funding sources, and better education
for researchers about insidious industry
funding practices and their accompanying
risks to research integrity.
Fabbri said there’s a definite need
for more academic awareness in this
regard, because "strategic partnerships
are encouraged by universities and
governments as a tool for innovation or to
guarantee research translation".
"The problem is, [this comes with a] high
risk of bias to the research environment.
And I think we need to raise awareness
about these biases.”
At the Charles Perkins Centre
there are guidelines for academics’
engagement with industry to attempt
to prevent research contamination.
Each research proposal goes to a
central committee, where it is subject
to a risks/benefits analysis. This includes
surveying its potential professional risk,
its alignment with the centre’s mission,
and whether the funder has control
over the proposal’s design, conduct
and dissemination.
Yet, echoing Bero, she called greater
non-industry funding “the most
effective strategy to counteract
corporate interests” and suggested
Australia adopt something akin to
an Italian scheme, whereby the
government required pharmaceutical
companies to contribute 5 per cent
of their annual marketing budgets to
independent research.
“Sometimes, you need to be bold …
I think it is a really good model that could
also be implemented in other research
areas beside pharmaceuticals; for example,
nutrition.”
While only 4 per cent of Australian
research is solely funded by industry, there
is much applied research that industry
contributes monies to. Also, government
schemes like ARC Linkage programs –
which require industry partnerships – can
involve industry funding. ■