Funding bias

Last updated

Funding bias, also known as sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, funding publication bias, and funding effect, refers to the tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies. Funding bias has been associated, in particular, with research into chemical toxicity, tobacco, and pharmaceutical drugs. [1] It is an instance of experimenter's bias.

Contents

Causes

Human nature

The psychology text Influence: Science and Practice describes the act of reciprocity as a trait in which a person feels obliged to return favors. This trait is embodied in all human cultures. Human nature may influence even the most ethical researchers to be affected by their sponsors, although they may genuinely deny it. [2]

Misconduct

Scientific malpractice involving shoddy research or data manipulation does occur in rare instances. Often, however, the quality of manufacturers' studies are at least as good as studies that were not funded by a special interest. [3] Therefore, bias usually occurs for other reasons.

Predetermined conclusion

Research results can be selected or discarded to support a predetermined conclusion. [4] The tobacco industry, for example, would publish their own internal research that invariably found minimal adverse health effects of passive smoking. [3]

A company that hires researchers to perform a study may require the researchers to sign a nondisclosure agreement before they are funded, by which researchers waive their right to release any results independently and release them only to the sponsor. The sponsor may fund several studies at the same time, suppressing results found contrary to their business interests while publicizing the results that support their interests. Indeed, a review of pharmaceutical studies revealed that research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published, but the drug-company-funded research that was published was more likely to report outcomes favorable to the sponsor. [5]

A double-blind study with only objective measures is less likely to be biased to support a given conclusion. However, the researchers or the sponsors still have opportunities to skew the results by discarding or ignoring undesirable data, qualitatively characterizing the results, and ultimately deciding whether to publish at all. Also, not all studies are possible to conduct double-blind.

Publication bias

Scientist researcher Anders Sandberg writes that funding bias may be a form of publication bias. Because it is easier to publish positive results than inconclusive or no results, positive results may be correlated with being positive for the sponsor. [6]

Outcome reporting bias is related to publication bias and selection bias, in which multiple outcomes are measured but only the significant outcomes are reported, while insignificant or unfavorable outcomes are ignored. [7]

Selection of subjects or comparators

Selection bias may result in a non-representative population of test subjects in spite of best efforts to obtain a representative sample. Even a double-blind study may be subject to biased selection of dependent variables, population (via inclusion and exclusion criteria), sample size, statistical methods, or inappropriate comparators, any of which can bias the outcome of a study to favor a particular conclusion. [5]

Examples

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Soft drink</span> Sweetened non-alcoholic drink, often carbonated

A soft drink is any water-based flavored drink, usually but not necessarily carbonated, and typically including added sweetener. Flavors used can be natural or artificial. The sweetener may be a sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, fruit juice, a sugar substitute, or some combination of these. Soft drinks may also contain caffeine, colorings, preservatives and other ingredients.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randomized controlled trial</span> Form of scientific experiment

A randomized controlled trial is a form of scientific experiment used to control factors not under direct experimental control. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures or other medical treatments.

In a blind or blinded experiment, information which may influence the participants of the experiment is withheld until after the experiment is complete. Good blinding can reduce or eliminate experimental biases that arise from a participants' expectations, observer's effect on the participants, observer bias, confirmation bias, and other sources. A blind can be imposed on any participant of an experiment, including subjects, researchers, technicians, data analysts, and evaluators. In some cases, while blinding would be useful, it is impossible or unethical. For example, it is not possible to blind a patient to their treatment in a physical therapy intervention. A good clinical protocol ensures that blinding is as effective as possible within ethical and practical constraints.

In published academic research, publication bias occurs when the outcome of an experiment or research study biases the decision to publish or otherwise distribute it. Publishing only results that show a significant finding disturbs the balance of findings in favor of positive results. The study of publication bias is an important topic in metascience.

Continuing medical education (CME) is continuing education (CE) that helps those in the medical field maintain competence and learn about new and developing areas of their field. These activities may take place as live events, written publications, online programs, audio, video, or other electronic media. Content for these programs is developed, reviewed, and delivered by faculty who are experts in their individual clinical areas. Similar to the process used in academic journals, any potentially conflicting financial relationships for faculty members must be both disclosed and resolved in a meaningful way. However, critics complain that drug and device manufacturers often use their financial sponsorship to bias CMEs towards marketing their own products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mecamylamine</span> Group of stereoisomers

Mecamylamine is a non-selective, non-competitive antagonist of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) that was introduced in the 1950s as an antihypertensive drug. In the United States, it was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in 2009 but was brought to market in 2013 as Vecamyl and eventually was marketed by Turing Pharmaceuticals.

A fat tax is a tax or surcharge that is placed upon fattening food, beverages or on overweight individuals. It is considered an example of Pigovian taxation. A fat tax aims to discourage unhealthy diets and offset the economic costs of obesity.

In epidemiology, reporting bias is defined as "selective revealing or suppression of information" by subjects. In artificial intelligence research, the term reporting bias is used to refer to people's tendency to under-report all the information available.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugary drink tax</span> Tax or surcharge on soft drinks

A sugary drink tax, soda tax, or sweetened beverage tax (SBT) is a tax or surcharge designed to reduce consumption of sweetened beverages. Drinks covered under a soda tax often include carbonated soft drinks, sports drinks and energy drinks. This policy intervention is an effort to decrease obesity and the health impacts related to being overweight, however the medical evidence supporting the benefits of a sugar tax on health is of very low certainty. The tax is a matter of public debate in many countries and beverage producers like Coca-Cola often oppose it. Advocates such as national medical associations and the World Health Organization promote the tax as an example of Pigovian taxation, aimed to discourage unhealthy diets and offset the growing economic costs of obesity.

White hat bias (WHB) is a purported "bias leading to the distortion of information in the service of what may be perceived to be righteous ends", which consist of both cherry picking the evidence and publication bias. Public health researchers David Allison and Mark Cope first discussed this bias in a 2010 paper and explained the motivation behind it in terms of "righteous zeal, indignation toward certain aspects of industry", and other factors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Added sugar</span> Caloric sweeteners added to food and beverages

Added sugars or free sugars are sugar carbohydrates added to food and beverages at some point before their consumption. These include added carbohydrates, and more broadly, sugars naturally present in honey, syrup, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates. They can take multiple chemical forms, including sucrose, glucose (dextrose), and fructose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sweetened beverage</span> Type of beverage

A sweetened beverage is any beverage with added sugar. It has been described as "liquid candy". Consumption of sweetened beverages has been linked to weight gain, obesity, and associated health risks. According to the CDC, consumption of sweetened beverages is also associated with unhealthy behaviors like smoking, not getting enough sleep and exercise, and eating fast food often and not enough fruits regularly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AllTrials</span>

AllTrials is a project advocating that clinical research adopt the principles of open research. The project summarizes itself as "All trials registered, all results reported": that is, all clinical trials should be listed in a clinical trials registry, and their results should always be shared as open data.

Joanna Moncrieff is a British psychiatrist and academic. She is Professor of Critical and Social Psychiatry at University College London and a leading figure in the Critical Psychiatry Network. She is a prominent critic of the modern 'psychopharmacological' model of mental disorder and drug treatment, and the role of the pharmaceutical industry. She has written papers, books and blogs on the use and over-use of drug treatment for mental health problems, the mechanism of action of psychiatric drugs, their subjective and psychoactive effects, the history of drug treatment, and the evidence for its benefits and harms. She also writes on the history and politics of psychiatry more generally. Her best known books are The Myth of the Chemical Cure and The Bitterest Pills.

The Australian paradox is an observation of diverging trends in sugar consumption and obesity rates in Australia. The term was first used in a 2011 study published in Nutrients by Professor Jennie Brand-Miller, in which she and co-author Dr Alan Barclay reported that, in Australia, "a substantial decline in refined sugars intake occurred over the same timeframe that obesity has increased."

Conflict of interest in the health care industry occurs when the primary goal of protecting and increasing the health of patients comes into conflict with any other secondary goal, especially personal gain to healthcare professionals, and increasing revenue to a healthcare organization from selling health care products and services. The public and private sectors of the medical-industrial complex have various conflicts of interest which are specific to these entities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugar Association</span> American sugar industry trade association

The Sugar Association is a trade association for the sugar industry of the United States. Its members include nearly 142,000 growers, processors and refiners of sugar beet and sugarcane plants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugar marketing</span> Marketing of sugar

Sugar is heavily marketed both by sugar producers and the producers of sugary drinks and foods. Apart from direct marketing methods such as messaging on packaging, television ads, advergames, and product placement in setting like blogs, industry has worked to steer coverage of sugar-related health information in popular media, including news media and social media.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conflicts of interest in academic publishing</span>

Conflicts of interest (COIs) often arise in academic publishing. Such conflicts may cause wrongdoing and make it more likely. Ethical standards in academic publishing exist to avoid and deal with conflicts of interest, and the field continues to develop new standards. Standards vary between journals and are unevenly applied. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "[a]uthors have a responsibility to evaluate the integrity, history, practices and reputation of the journals to which they submit manuscripts".

Dean-David Schillinger is an American general internist and former Chief of the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Division of General Internal Medicine at San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH). In 2006, he founded the UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations, whose mission is to advance health in poor communities. His research focuses on health communication for vulnerable populations, and the prevention and control of type 2 diabetes.

References

  1. ↑ Krimsky Sheldon (2013). "Do Financial Conflicts of Interest Bias Research? An Inquiry into the "Funding Effect" Hypothesis" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 38 (4): 566–587. doi:10.1177/0162243912456271. S2CID   42598982. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-10-17. Retrieved 2015-09-15.
  2. ↑ Cialdini, Robert B (2008-08-08). Influence: Science and Practice (5th ed) . Prentice Hall. ISBN   978-0-205-60999-4.
  3. 1 2 3 David Michaels (2008-07-15). "It's Not the Answers That Are Biased, It's the Questions". The Washington Post.
  4. ↑ Wilmshurst, Peter (2007). "Dishonesty in Medical Research" (PDF). The Medico-Legal Journal. 75 (Pt 1): 3–12. doi:10.1258/rsmmlj.75.1.3. PMID   17506338. S2CID   26915448. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-05-21.
  5. 1 2 Lexchin, Joel; Bero, Lisa A; Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Clark, Otavio (2003-05-31). "Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review". BMJ. 326 (7400): 1167–1170. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167. PMC   156458 . PMID   12775614.
  6. ↑ Anders Sandberg (2007-01-14). "Supping with the Devil". OvercomingBias.
  7. ↑ "Types of Bias". Cochrane Bias Methods Group. 2009-06-19. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
  8. ↑ Christina Turner; George J Spilich (1997). "Research into smoking or nicotine and human cognitive performance: does the source of funding make a difference?". Addiction. 92 (11): 1423–1426. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02863.x. PMID   9519485. Archived from the original on 2012-10-21.
  9. ↑ C. Bruce Baker; Michael T. Johnsrud; M. Lynn Crismon; Robert A. Rosenheck; Scott W. Woods (2003). "Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 183 (6): 498–506. doi: 10.1192/bjp.183.6.498 . PMID   14645020.
  10. ↑ Becker-Brüser W (2010). "Research in the pharmaceutical industry cannot be objective". Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 104 (3): 183–9. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2010.03.003. PMID   20608245.
  11. ↑ Anke Huss; Matthias Egger; Kerstin Hug; Karin Huwiler-Müntener; Martin Röösli (2006-09-15). "Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies". Environmental Health Perspectives. 115 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1289/ehp.9149. PMC   1797826 . PMID   17366811.
  12. ↑ vom Saal FS, Myers JP (2008). "Bisphenol A and Risk of Metabolic Disorders". JAMA . 300 (11): 1353–5. doi:10.1001/jama.300.11.1353. PMID   18799451.
  13. ↑ Stephen Daniells (2009-09-25). "Splenda study: Industry and academia respond". Foodnavigator.com.
  14. ↑ Schillinger D, Tran J, Mangurian C, Kearns C (1 November 2016). "Do Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Cause Obesity and Diabetes? Industry and the Manufacture of Scientific Controversy". Ann Intern Med. 165 (12): 895–897. doi:10.7326/L16-0534. PMC   7883900 . PMID   27802504. S2CID   207537905.
  15. ↑ Melissa Healy (31 October 2016). "Does the soda industry manipulate research on sugary drinks' health effects?". The Los Angeles Times.
  16. ↑ Lundh, Andreas; Lexchin, Joel; Mintzes, Barbara; Schroll, Jeppe B.; Bero, Lisa (16 Feb 2017). "Industry sponsorship and research outcome". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017 (2): MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3. ISSN   1469-493X. PMC   8132492 . PMID   28207928.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.