The Funding Effect

When Iâm teaching a class or speaking to a group about the "funding effect" â the close correlation between the results desired by a studyâs funders and those reported by the researchers â people often ask how researchers do it. How is it that researchers paid by a sponsor usually get results favorable to the study's sponsor?

I've try to help answer that question in an article that appears in todayâs Washington Post, entitled It's Not the Answers That Are Biased, It's the Questions. (A longer discussion of the funding effect is in my book Doubt is Their Product).

Having a financial stake in the outcome changes the way even the most respected scientists approach their research. Scientists make many decisions about the doses, exposure methods and disease definitions they use in their experiments, and each decision affects the result.

As Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal, has explained, it would be far too crude (and possibly detectable) to fiddle directly with the results; sophisticated scientists know that you can get the answers you want by setting up a study in certain ways. Iâve included examples of research questions designed to arrive at a desired result in my Washington Post piece, which you can read here.

More like this

One arena in which members of the public seem to understand their interest in good and unbiased scientific research is drug testing. Yet a significant portion of the research on new drugs and their use in treating patients is funded by drug manufacturers -- parties that have an interest in more…
When I wrote about the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) trial last week, little did I suspect that I would be revisiting the topic again so soon. For those of you not familiar with TACT, it was a trial designed to test a favorite quack treatment for cardiovascular disease, chelation therapy…
One of the favorite fallacious arguments favored by pseudoscientists and denialists of science is the ever infamous "science was wrong before" gambit, wherein it is argued that, because science is not perfect or because scientists are not perfect, then science is not to be trusted. We've seen it…
It looks like it's going to be a pretty busy day for me, so here's a post from the archives. I picked this one because it's still very timely (the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 is still in committee in the Senate) and it's related to my recent post on open peer review. (4 May 2006)…

Is there an effective cure for this ailment?

By J C Metcalf (not verified) on 18 Jul 2008 #permalink

The science on cell phones and health suffers from the same industry influence/denial of risk as BPA. And the product is equally ubiquitous in today's world.
See Huss et al,
Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone
Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies
Anke Huss,1 Matthias Egger,1,2 Kerstin Hug,3 Karin Huwiler-Müntener,1 and Martin Röösli1
Environ Health Perspect 115:1â4 (2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9149 available via
http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 15 September 2006]

By Nancy Evans (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink