Bias and misrepresentation in research

Protecting research integrity in a culture of collaboration with industry and government

For some research sector participants, collaborating across the academic-industry divide is familiar. Partnerships between trusted collaborators are deeply valuable to participants. For others, a scarcity of public resources for research increases pressure on researchers to accept industry partners who may see value in the brand association that collaboration can bring, and who wish to use the independence of the academic community to exploit a corporate agenda.

The disparity in bargaining power can remove academic independence from any partnership or funding deal. Where this is the case, there are varying degrees of control within the research funding pipeline demonstrate the depth of political, corporate and individual control that can be exercised to pervert research integrity and progress, including censorship, embedded bias and misrepresentation as well as softer manipulation tactics.

This paper highlights recent examples of manipulative research controls, both direct and indirect.

There are endless examples of direct conflicts of interest in research, across sectors including, energy, health and consumer goods (a sample are highlighted below). Even where direct controls are not in place, corporates who have framework agreements in place with universities exercise influence in the form of project selection decisions (to drive the direction of research toward their own interests).

Climate Change

The Silencing Science Tracker from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University tracks government attempts to restrict or prohibit scientific research, education or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information, since the November 2016 election.

A recent investigation by Reveal shows the unprecedented political interference in government science at the US Interior Department.

Energy

Big Oil Goes to College: An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts Between Leading Energy Companies and Major US Universities highlights the spectrum of intervention points that bad actors can manipulate to their corporate advantage. From exercising control over the exclusion of adverse results to project selection, aimed at steering research toward or away from vested interests.

More recently, Drilled exposed how oil companies made a strategic effort to use funding of university research centres to control the science on which regulation is based. They turned down the opportunity to strive to become the Bell Labs of the energy sector, and instead created climate denial and made it viral.

Competition Policy

The research community needs tools that can be deployed to balance corporate interests where the control being exercised is soft. The controversy surrounding Google’s funding of research aligned with its own policy agenda (in this case, the role of regulation relating to monopolies) where it extends to blocking the careers of those within a funded organisation that are pursuing topics that are sensitive and adverse to the interests of the sponsor. Read more.

Health

A lack of funding for nutrition research drives researchers to look to industry. The conflicts of interest are rampant. Even where the studies are carried out according to strong scientific principles, bias can be embedded in formulating the question asked, the interpretation of the results, and in applying pressure to put a positive spin on findings even when the results are neutral.

The report on Institutional Scientific Misconduct at U.S. Public Health Agencies: How Malevolent Government Betrayed Flint, MI offers a particularly telling example of the pre-Trump political abuse of power in research. Flint and Washington D.C. drinking water crises include “scientifically indefensible” reports by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004; U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology, 2010), reports based on nonexistent data published by the U.S. EPA and their consultants in industry journals (Reiber and Dufresne, 2006; Boyd et al., 2012; Edwards, 2012; Retraction Watch, 2015b; U.S. Congress House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 2016), and silencing of whistleblowers in EPA (Coleman-Adebayo, 2011; Lewis, 2014; U.S. Congress House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 2015).

Clinical Trials

A recent report found that industry sponsored drug and device studies are more often favourable to the sponsor’s products than non-industry sponsored drug and device studies due to biases that cannot be explained by standard bias assessment tools.

When it comes to clinical trials, the stakes are high. The number of newly registered industry-sponsored trials increased 43% over the period from 4,585 in 2006 to 6,550 in 2014. The number of newly registered NIH-funded trials decreased 24% over the same period from 1,376 in 2006 to 1,048 in 2014. Industry engagement is an increasing component of the research landscape. The cost of developing and testing a new drug are high. The chances of it being brought to market are low. Objectivity can be compromised. Read more.

Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organisations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice compared with trials funded by non-profit organisations. This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events.

While these studies acknowledge the potential benefits of collaborating with industry, they also identify the need for robust research design. Suggestions for independent assessment of research design, prior to studies being conducted have merit.

The increasing politicisation of research, escalates the need for a robust governance system to preserve research integrity in the face of these challenges.

Sign up to Coalfacer to learn more about the Design Studio and the research integrity and governance systems it embeds.