The Trouble with Science Funding

, lead analyst, Center for Science and Democracy | April 8, 2016, 4:34 pm EDT
Bookmark and Share

“We should acknowledge the elephant in the room” one panelist said.

Last week I attended a half-day event put on by Scientific American.  The topic was media coverage of scientific topics and the “elephant” was the event’s corporate sponsorship. The sponsors were Johnson & Johnson and GMO Answers, a website funded by The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes leading agricultural companies such as BASF, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta. GMO Answers is run by Ketchum, the public relations firm known for its work promoting the agriculture industry. Many on social media expressed disapproval with the funding of the event. How could Scientific American host such a biased event? many wondered. But is the sponsorship of such an event inherently problematic? The discussion raised questions about the appropriate role of private sector funding for scientific events and for scientific research. Let’s dive into the challenges of private sector funding of science.  Here goes.

Rule #1: Disclosure

SciAmFlyerFirst and foremost, funding sources for scientific events, conferences, and research should be disclosed publicly in a clear and obvious location.  This is a given. Scientific journals routinely ask authors to disclose real or perceived conflicts of interest and to list funders in acknowledgements. These are excellent places to disclose all funding sources and the scientific community expects this. And notably, there are consequences for scientists who don’t and are discovered, as we’ve seen on everything from hydraulic fracturing research to climate change contrarians to doctors’ pharmaceutical connections.

At the event I attended last week, at least one journalist who spoke claimed he didn’t learn of GMO Answers’ sponsorship until after agreeing to participate. This is inappropriate. Potential participants should know about the sponsorship up front before judging their interest in participating. (Note: Scientific American claimed this was unintentional.) To that end, journalists also should disclose any compensation they’ve received for participation in such events.

How should we judge corporate-funded science?

Provided we know about funding sources, how should the resulting science be judged? Should we assume corporate-funded science is tainted? Biased? Incorrect? It depends on the context. At a minimum, science should be subject to a greater level of scrutiny if it receives funding from an industry with direct interests in the implications of that science. Would you trust a study funded by the tobacco industry that touted health benefits of smoking? Of course not. (The University of Maryland, for example, learned this lesson recently on its reporting of a shoddy study promoting the medical benefits of chocolate milk for concussion recovery. The research was sponsored by the very brand of chocolate milk being studied—what odds!).

What would greater scrutiny mean for such science? It means that to trust the science produced, we would expect the research to follow best practices for ensuring the independence of the science: Strong external peer review from scientists who have no conflict of interest, disclosure of all financial ties, public availability of methods and, where appropriate data, and no manipulation of results or messaging for corporate (organizational) purposes.

But funding relationships aren’t necessarily problematic. Private sector funding can be routed through a neutral third party to insulate the science from inappropriate influence. The Health Effects Institute, for example, is a nonprofit that allocates and oversees research funds from the motor vehicle industry and the EPA to academic researchers studying the health impacts of air pollution. Corporations can name buildings, support student scholarships, and sponsor events in ways that are less likely to have direct impact on the quality of science. These actions do, however, undoubtedly influence people, if immeasurably, and they lend science credibility and access to the funding agent. (Perhaps a subject for a future blog…)

Further, the nature of the relationship matters, and this should also be disclosed. An arrangement where the sponsor has control over how the study is conducted or what results get published (or the ability to review as in the case of Willie Soon’s ExxonMobil funding) is far more problematic than an unattached grant where a scientist is free to conduct and publish the research as they see fit and free to name the funder.

When does corporate funding become a problem?

Good science can have industry funding. However, researchers who accept direct money from financial interests in the areas in which they work shouldn’t be surprised if their work is subject to greater scrutiny. And importantly, they should proactively disclose that funding. It could be exemplary science, but we can’t forget the past and current activities of some industries when it comes to funding science.

Many private sector actors have demonstrated time and again their inability to respect science and play by its rules. The sugar and corn syrup industry have paid seemingly independent scientists to spout industry talking points without disclosing their affiliation to the industry. The chemical industry has paid consultants to conduct intentionally misleading studies to hide the health impacts of its chemicals, while countless people die because the chemicals go unregulated. And it was recently revealed that the NFL used incomplete data sets to obscure the relationship between concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

For many people (and I’d include myself here), these actors have abdicated any right for us to assume they are acting in good faith. The burden of proof should be on these industries to demonstrate they are following independent science protocols in order to regain the public trust. In some cases, entire industries have had their social license to operate revoked. As the most prominent example, any science affiliated with the tobacco industry is no longer considered credible by most.

Increasingly, the fossil fuel industry is being stigmatized in the same way. Investors are weary of the industry’s political activities around climate change, an ever increasing list of state attorney generals are investigating oil companies for deceiving the public about their products, and scientists are telling the largest society of earth scientists in the world that they don’t want ExxonMobil to sponsor their conference.

The plight of the scientist

Many have argued that corporate funding allows research that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. It’s true. As government grants get increasingly competitive and public science funding decreases, researchers are strapped to find funds to support their work, especially in light of academic pressures to bring dollars to their university. For individual studies and events, scientists and institutions must decide if industry money is worthwhile and in what capacity.

I thought the Scientific American event was an interesting and substantive conversation on science communication. For example, the journalist panel had an enlightening discussion on if and how to cover those with misinformed views on a scientific topic (e.g. prominent voices with anti-vaccination views), whether their coverage would lend credibility to misinformation, and how to provide tools to their audience to judge the credibility of their sources.  But online the conversation instead turned to the “industry taint” of the event rather than its content. If the goal of the event was to have an honest conversation on the challenges of portraying scientific topics in the media (and we might speculate on whether or not that was the goal), was the added funding from GMO Answers and Johnson & Johnson worth it?

As scientists and as consumers of scientific information, we must judge for ourselves what is and isn’t acceptable when it comes to private sector funding of science. We must demand transparency around funding sources and funding relationships so we have the full picture with which to judge. And we must hold actors accountable when we find inappropriate funding relationships. This, unfortunately, will mean that we’ll often have to deal with a lot of elephants in the room.


Posted in: Science and Democracy, Science Communication Tags: , , ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • Thanks all for your thoughtful comments. This is indeed a tricky issue to think about. I appreciate your ideas. To be clear, all science, whether it comes from the private sector, civil societies, think tanks or philanthropic organizations, should be held to high standards of scientific rigor, peer-review, and transparency of methods. And as I said, having funding from industry sources isn’t inherently problematic, but certainly we should carefully consider science produced with ties to an industry that would financially benefit from the conclusions of that science. To not do so would ignore a rich history of scientific misconduct by private sector actors.

  • solodoctor

    Thanks for a thoughtful discussion of these issues. The long history of how the tobacco industry at least influenced, if not controlled, research done on the effects of smoking should always be kept in mind. More recently, the fossil fuel industry or the ag business efforts to determine the nature and outcome of research are equally relevant. Even governmentally funded research can be subject to pressures from outside parties. Vigilance by those doing the research is required.

  • mem_somerville

    I would also be interested in your thoughts about science from activist groups. For example, many of the folks who complain about GMO funding are funded by the Organic industry. But for some reason, this gets a pass from the presumed referees (journalists, for example) all the time.

    In fact, just the other day I found out that there is a scientist who is on the “Board of Directors” of one of the EWG groups. He regularly comments on EWG studies–without disclosing that he associated with them. He uses his academic credentials, and fails to note his EWG affiliation.

  • Stephanie

    Thank you, UCS, for openly speaking about this issue. As an entomologist who studies honey bees and other pollinators, I have been extremely disturbed by the relationship between the Entomological Society of America and agrochemical companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer. These companies actively promote their own chemicals and deny the involvement of neonicotinoids in colony losses, as well as the harmful effects of the proliferation of genetically modified plants (no it is not that I think they are unsafe to eat–however, their involvement in the exponential increase in the use of glyphosate, a WHO-declared probable carcinogen, is never discussed by these companies, despite the fact that it is carcinogenic and has been detected in everything from drinking water to breast milk). It is time scientists call out research that is clearly biased and begin scrutinizing the methods of researchers from these companies. In my field, colony-level honey bee pesticide research usually does not even have high enough statistical power to detect effects, but this is never mentioned in any of the publications that exhibit this problem. “We found no effects” is taken at face value despite key flaws in experimental design, measured endpoints, and study duration. What I have found from my review of the literature is that when experiments test the “effects” of neonicotinoids, they largely just put colonies near either treated or untreated fields. These fields are usually not far away enough from each other to prevent bees from the a treatment from foraging in the opposite field. And these are just a couple of the problems in current neonic research. I hope UCS continues to raise this issue in the scientific community and more directly expose conflicts of interest between researchers and industry (in neonicotinoid-bee research, there are many).