Elsevier

Addictive Behaviors

Volume 72, September 2017, Pages 100-105
Addictive Behaviors

Funder interference in addiction research: An international survey of authors

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.03.026Get rights and content

Highlights

  • 36% of all respondents had experienced funder interference at least once

  • Censorship of research outputs was the most common form of interference

  • Government departments were the most common sources of interference

  • Over half of all respondents thought the level of funder interference was stable or increasing

Abstract

Objective

Scientific research is essential to the development of effective addiction treatment and drug policy. Actions that compromise the integrity of addiction science need to be understood. The aim of this study is to investigate funder (e.g. industry, government or charity) interference in addiction science internationally.

Method

Corresponding authors of all 941 papers published in an international specialist journal July 2004 to June 2009 were invited to complete a web questionnaire. A sensitivity analysis with extreme assumptions about non-respondents was undertaken.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 322 authors (response fraction 34%), 36% (n = 117) of whom had encountered at least one episode (median = 3, Interquartile range = 4) of funder interference in their research: 56% in Australasia, 33% in Europe, and 30% in North America. Censorship of research outputs was the most common form of interference. The wording or writing of reports and articles, as well as where, when and how findings were released were the areas in which influence was most often reported.

Conclusions

Funder interference in addiction science appears to be common internationally. Strategies to increase transparency in the addiction science literature, including mandatory author declarations concerning the role of the funder, are necessary.

Introduction

Independent, publicly funded science is fundamental to modern liberal democracy. Concerns about the validity of science can slow advancement in a field and reduce public confidence in the importance of scientific findings in the development of public policy. A prime example is the “reproducibility crisis”, whereby findings from earlier studies have proven impossible to replicate (Begley and Ioannidis, 2015, Couchman, 2014). The gravest concerns are about fraud by individual scientists (Fanelli, 2009), and more systemic biases reflecting the interests of commercial or other agendas, as typified by scientists working for the tobacco industry (Babor et al., 2010, Bero, 2005, Drope and Chapman, 2001).

High income countries have government agencies whose roles include funding investigator-initiated research or projects to meet specific policy objectives, e.g., the US National Institutes of Health. A considerable amount of research and development, some of it focused on health, is also undertaken by private companies (e.g., the pharmaceutical industry) and non-government organisations (e.g., Wellcome Trust). The third major research purchasing sector consists of government agencies (such as state or national health departments, such as SAMSHA in the USA, or the Victorian Commission of Liquor, Gaming and Racing in Australia) whose primary aims are service delivery, for which research and evaluation are commissioned to improve public services, e.g., by identifying strategies for more effective delivery of addiction treatment.

Kassirer (2005) revealed the willingness of pharmaceutical companies to disallow or substantially delay the publication of non-supportive findings; and to fund only certain types of research. The tobacco industry has been found to interfere with health science using a variety of methods such as suppressing unfavourable results and funding research on causes of disease other than smoking (Hirshhorn et al., 2001, King, 2006). The alcohol industry uses organisations, such as the International Center for Alcohol Policies (Washington DC), Drinkwise (Australia) and Drinkaware (UK), to support research biased toward ineffective countermeasures, such as alcohol education, while opposing supply-side policies shown to be effective in reducing alcohol-related harm (Babor and Xuan, 2004, Martino et al., 2017, McCambridge et al., 2014, Miller et al., 2008).

Government bodies also interfere with research. In a 2006 survey of 302 public health academics from 17 institutions across Australia, respondents reported 142 incidents of ‘suppression’ of their findings by government bodies (Yazahmeidi & Holman, 2007). The most common incidents involved a government agency censoring, delaying or prohibiting the publication of findings. Of the researchers who experienced suppression, half believed it was because their finding drew attention to the failings of health services, while a quarter indicated it was due to their having highlighted the health status of a vulnerable group. In 87% of cases the government succeeded in modifying the reporting of research findings (Yazahmeidi & Holman, 2007).

Government interference in the reporting of public good research findings is not unique to Australia. A recent inquiry led by the Right Honourable Stephen Sedley, revealed that government departments in the UK commonly delayed the release of research for political reasons (Sedley, 2016).

A more recent Australian case study presented examples of contractual clauses that permit government agencies to determine whether the research they purchase from universities and other providers reaches the public domain. These included vesting sole ownership of intellectual property generated by the research in the funder, and the requirement that researchers seek permission from the funder to publish findings (Kypri, 2015b), the implication being that the funder could deny permission or specify what could be included in the report.

Miller and colleagues (Miller, Moore, & Strang, 2006) have previously identified the following six classes of funder interference: (1) censoring research reports, (2) prescribing or proscribing research designs, (3) restricting access to data, (4) employing private research companies and/or junior researchers to facilitate control over the outcome, (5) ensuring and emphasising funding insecurity, and (6) diluting the evidence base through the publication of contrary findings from research designed to suit the funder's interests. The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of these and other types of interference in addiction research.

Section snippets

Design

We conducted a cross-sectional survey, the sampling frame included corresponding authors of articles published in the journal Addiction from July 2004 to June 2009 (60 issues in 5 volumes) with a valid e-mail address or those who were accessible via web search. Permission to conduct the study was granted by the Editorial Board of the journal, and the study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of King's College University of London, PNM/09/10-7.

Recruitment

From July 2004 to June 2009, the journal

Respondent characteristics

The web questionnaire was commenced by 343 sample members, and 322 completed it (response fraction 34%; see Table 1). All those who dropped out did so by the end of the demographics section. Two-thirds of respondents were men (n = 211) whose mean age (52 years) was greater than that of women (45 years, t = 5.136, p < 0.001). Thirty countries were represented and the largest contributors were the USA (40%), Australia (12%) and the UK (9%). Respondents were grouped into six continental regions to

Discussion

Over a third of respondents had experienced at least one instance of funder interference in their research. Interference by governments was common and we found similar proportions of reported interference from commercial and government funders. While we have no comparable studies from other fields, it is clear that funder interference is common and the findings suggest there would be benefit in replicating this study across a broader range of academic disciplines.

Declaration of interest

Peter Miller receives funding from: Australian Research Council and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, grants from NSW Government, National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund, Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Cancer Council Victoria, Queensland government and Australian Drug Foundation, and has received travel and related costs from Australasian Drug Strategy Conference. He has acted as a paid expert witness in legal proceedings on behalf of a licensed venue

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a restricted grant from Addiction journal and Australian Research Council [Linkage grant number LP130100046], the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE) and the Victorian Cancer Council. PM and SG were supported by fellowships from the J Paul Getty Jr. Charitable Trust and the Pilgrim Trust. PM was supported by the NHMRC Howard Florey Fellowship [grant number: 425881]. KK is supported by the NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship [grant number APP1041867].

References (28)

  • P.G. Miller et al.

    The regulation of research by funding bodies: An emerging ethical issue for the alcohol and other drug sector

    The International Journal on Drug Policy

    (2006)
  • B. Yazahmeidi et al.

    A survey of suppression of public health information by Australian governments

    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

    (2007)
  • Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation. (2012). ABMRF 2012 annual report. Retrieved from...
  • T. Babor et al.

    Vested interests, addiction research and public policy

    Addiction

    (2010)
  • T. Babor et al.

    Alcohol policy research and the grey literature

    Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

    (2004)
  • T.F. Babor et al.

    McCarthyism, conflict of interest and Addiction's new transparency declaration procedures

    Addiction

    (2014)
  • C.G. Begley et al.

    Reproducibility in science: Improving the standard for basic and preclinical research

    Circulation Research

    (2015)
  • L. Bero

    Tobacco industry manipulation of research

    Public Health Reports

    (2005)
  • J.R. Couchman

    Peer review and reproducibility. Crisis or time for course correction?

    The Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry

    (2014)
  • J. Drope et al.

    Tobacco industry efforts at discrediting scientific knowledge of environmental tobacco smoke: A review of internal industry documents

    Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

    (2001)
  • D. Fanelli

    How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data

    PloS One

    (2009)
  • R.E. Ferner

    The influence of big pharma: Wide ranging report identifies many areas of influence and distortion

    British Medical Journal

    (2005)
  • B. Hawkins et al.

    'Water dripping on stone'? Industry lobbying and UK alcohol policy

    Policy & Politics

    (2014)
  • B. Hawkins et al.

    Alcohol industry influence on UK alcohol policy: A new research agenda for public health

    Critical Public Health

    (2012)
  • Cited by (13)

    • Ethical issues in substance misuse and addiction-related research

      2023, Substance Use and Addiction Research: Methodology, Mechanisms, and Therapeutics
    • An evaluation of the practice of transparency and reproducibility in addiction medicine literature

      2021, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      Of these authors, 117 (36%) reported experiencing interference from funders. These 117 authors reported 129 funder-mandated changes to parts of publications such as the study design (17/23, 74%), data management (5/9, 56%), data analysis (13/21, 62%), wording (40/57, 70%), and dissemination of findings (29/45, 64%) (Miller et al., 2017). These findings demonstrate the funders’ broad influence on the study design and outcome manipulation.

    • Reconstructing Research Integrity: Beyond Denial

      2023, Reconstructing Research Integrity: Beyond Denial
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text