Will Smith and Conflicts of Interest

Recently I watched the movie, Concussion (2015), which led me to question the validity of research in general as well as funding for psychological studies. In the movie, a young psychopathologist played by Will Smith, found that football players’ brains become damaged after decades of smashing into other players during the rough plays (Concussion, 2015). However after his findings were published, the NFL rejected the validity of his study and made their own studies which found contrary evidence. This led me to question… Can psychological research that is funded by private organizations be bias free completely?

As far as I know studies must reveal possible conflicts of interest within their papers, but even that doesn’t seem to eliminate the controversy completely. As the movie revealed, big companies such as the NFL and even pharmaceuticals have a huge amount of power, resources and influence when it comes to what gets said about their product. As I’ve learned in my Anth 202(Medical Anthropology) class, pharmacological companies that manufacture the drug also test them through “controlled randomized trials” using Guinea pigs (aka poor, homeless, jobless and disadvantaged people). How can it be said that these tests are objective if the subjects are not even allowed to leave the trial unless they want to get paid, even if the drugs cause them more harm they can bear. In one case study we also looked at Flibanserin which is “the Female Viagra” which, through testing was found to have a positive effect on arousal on women except that the effect size was so small, it seemed not to enhance anything in the end. Therefore, even the smallest of findings can be presented as evidence or “proof” of an effect.

So even if the psychological tests are right, how can we guarantee that what is being said about them is not skewed in a manner most convenient for those providing the funding for the study?

When I thinking of university learning, I’ve always imagined it to be a place where radical new ideas and research can be found that change the way people think about the world, such as the ones taught by Dr. Keating in the movie the Dead Poets society. However, how can university psychological research be so autonomous if more and more of their research interests are directed by private organizations? Even if the way in which the studies are conducted are standardized, is there not still a bias in the choice of topic? Hence the question I am raising here is, are we really researching what we (as a population) want to learn about or what the companies want to know in order to increase their business?

References

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays

https://philanthropy.com/article/When-Scientific-Research/151777

Carl Elliott, 2008. “Guinea-Pigging: Healthy Human Subjects for Drug-Safety Trials are in Demand: But is it a Living?” The New Yorker, January. Pp. 36–41.

Leonore Tiefer, 2006. “Female Sexual Dysfunction: A Case Study in Disease Mongering and Activist Resistance,” PloS Medicine Vol. 3(4): 436–440.