Are All Conflicts Equal?
Science journalism can vary tremendously in quality, as evidenced by some of the overreactions to the U.S. Task Force on Preventive Services recommendations on breast cancer screening.
One factor in this inconsistency is described by McGarity and Wagner (2008):
Reporters generally lack the technical expertise to probe beneath the contours of the scientific debate to learn whether the disagreements are scientifically credible, badly biased, or not scientific at all. (p. 223)
That problem is exacerbated when a journalist is more of an opinionist than a reporter.
Such is the case with John Tierney, the staff corporate-libertarian of the New York Times, who energetically defends the corporate funding of science in his piece “Who’s Conflicted Now?”
His core argument is that since all science is tainted by bias and conflict-of-interest in some form, there’s no need to worry about the corporate funding of research.
That argument is not new, nor does Tierney back it up by references to anything approaching systematic research. Nor does he offer any proposal (concrete or otherwise) of what a workable, rational conflict-of-interest policy would look like.
Instead, Tierney relies on anecdote and broadside, the rhetorical devices favored by his colleagues who inhabit that murky region between journalism and corporate public relations. (This may be why Reason magazine approvingly labeled Tierney a “Fifth Columnist.”)
By contrast, more scholarly, well-reasoned examinations (McGarity & Wagner, 2008; Michaels, 2008) have found that pecuniary biases are, indeed, a special form of bias – a form that is particularly insidious and vitiating. As Sheldon Krimsky (2005) explains:
Intellectual interests of scientists are part of the published record and consequently, can be debated in the open literature. When a scientist has a financial interest in his or her work, however, the instrumental value of the conflict is not part of the scientific record and is not subject to debate. Instead, it falls outside the zone of “organized skepticism” that is generally placed on scientific findings. (p. 53)
Research bears this out. Studies of pharmaceutical industry funding find that “industry-sponsored research tends to draw pro-industry conclusions.” (Bekelman, et al., 2003. Cf. also Peppercorn, et al., 2007; Tungaraza & Poole, 2007; Bhandari, et al. 2004; Lexchin, et al., 2003; Yaphe, et al. 2001). The corrupting influence of corporate funding has also been documented in other fields of health research, including nutrition (Lesser, et al., 2007), bisphenol A (vom Saal & Hughes, 2005), and tobacco (Turner & Spilich, 1997; Landman & Glantz, 2009).
Corporate involvement in alcohol research is similarly antithetic to good science (Babor, 2009), no matter what industry-friendly advocates claim.
References:
Krimsky, S. (2006). Autonomy, disinterest, and entrepreneurial science. Society, 43(4), 22-29. [full free text]
Krimsky, S. (2005). The funding effect in science and its implications for the judiciary. Journal of Law and Policy, 13(1), 43-59. [full free text]
Landman, A., & Glantz, S. (2009). Tobacco industry efforts to undermine policy-relevant research. American Journal of Public Health, 99(1), 45-58. [full free text]
McGarity, T.O. & Wagner, W.E. (2008). Bending science: How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
