Funding for scientific research tends to come mainly from governmental bodies, charities or industry. In nutritional research, the food industry provides large numbers of grants to researchers for the investigation of all manner of food related matters. Obviously the food industry does not provide money for nutritional research out of the goodness of its heart. Scientific research is a valuable propaganda tool and one which can be used for marketing, either directly by use of the findings, or through associating with the donation of funds for the ‘greater good’. Scientific research findings are also of use to the food industry for lobbying purposes. Evidence supporting the health benefits of a particular food, or showing that another food is not damaging to the health can easily be worth the relatively small sums of many that are necessary to support the research. Favourable results from studies can allow the food manufacturers to counterclaim accusations made against their foods by pressure groups or the public.
Receiving funding from industry is therefore a double edged sword. To the scientist it means that their jobs are assured for a while longer and that their research can continue. On the other hand, it creates a situation where the scientist can be pressured to present their findings in a particular light that appeases the wishes of the food manufacturer. The hand that gives is always above the hand that takes in this regard. To assess the degree of any such scientific bias caused by funding, a recent study1 investigated the scientific quality and other characteristics of studies that had investigated the effects of sugar sweetened soft drink consumption on body weight. The authors performed a systematic review of the literature and identified a number of studies that were then assessed by 11 independent readers to rate the paper between 0 (no evidence of an association between sugar sweetened soft drink consumption and body weight) and 5 (strong evidence for an association between sugar sweetened soft drinks and body weight).
The study identified 20 suitable studies from the literature that showed associations between sugar sweetened soft drink consumption and body weight. Of these 20 studies, 4 received funding from the food industry. The quality scores were not correlated with the perceived conclusions of the reader nor the funding source for the research. However, industry funded reviews were more likely to suggest that the associations between sugar sweetened soft drinks and body weight were weak, in comparison to non-industry funded studies that were more likely to suggest that the association was stronger and more well-founded. Such use of language and careful selection of statistical tests to influence the findings is well established in science and is often used where a vested interest is held. However, as long as the data is a true reflection of the actual observations, then techniques to lead a reader to a predetermined conclusion should not be successful if the paper is read and understood in its entirety.
RdB
