• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Dietitians for Professional Integrity

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Resources
    • Advocacy & Action Toolkit
    • Conflict-Free CEUs
    • Distinguished Dietitians
    • Ethical Sponsorship
    • FNCE Guides & Reports
    • Like-Minded Organizations
    • RD Resource Toolkit
    • Statements of Concern
    • Understand The Issues
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • Search

Oct 18, 2016 Leave a Comment

Doctors Are Concerned About Funding Bias in Medical Research

Concerns about funding bias in academic research are widespread, and a growing number of trusted health experts are sharing their concerns.

Dr. Marion Nestle has been keeping track of this issue in the nutrition field.

Last week, NPR highlighted this problem within the context of medical literature.

Highlights:

  • “For many years, meta-analyses and systematic reviews seemed to solve a big problem. Doctors who had once relied on each other’s expert opinions to select the best treatments gradually turned to careful scientific studies instead.”
  • “But the number of studies mushroomed and often came to different conclusions. So in the 1990s, doctors and medical advisory committees started relying on studies that combined results from many different research projects to streamline the search for answers.”
  • “These kinds of studies are “extremely important,” says Dr. John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine health research and policy at Stanford University. He has conducted many of these types of studies over the course of his career. “They’re trying to make some sense out of a very convoluted scientific and medical literature.”
  • “But Ioannidis says unfortunately things have gotten out of hand. First, “the problem is that there are just too many meta-analyses,” Ioannidis says. What’s worse, they’re increasingly being generated by scientists who have financial interests in the outcome, Ioannidis found.”
  • “Ioannidis says the drug industry has started using meta-analysis for commercial purposes, rather than as a disinterested look at the evidence.”
  • “They can get the results or at least the interpretation that fits their needs. So you have the most powerful and most prestigious design in current medical evidence, and it can be easily manipulated as an advertisement, as a marketing tool.”
  • “Peter Kramer, a clinical professor emeritus at Brown University and author of Listening to Prozac, took a deep dive into meta-analyses when he was writing his latest book, Ordinarily Well. He found the situation even worse than Ioannidis suggests. “In some ways my doubts are stronger than his,” Kramer told NPR Shots.”
  • “And the problems he found aren’t simply commercial conflicts of interest. For example, he saw biases among academics who were wedded to the notion that placebos are just as good as actual drugs for depression.”
  • “The influence of funders is a concern, says Dr. Alfred Berg, a professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Washington who chaired one of the committees. It’s reasonable to suggest that scientists with clear financial conflicts of interest should not be producing these studies. “Is it going to happen in my lifetime?” Berg says. “Probably not!”
  • “Fortunately, scientific journals are starting to do a better job of making sure researchers disclose their financial interests. It’s up to readers now to take heed.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Categories: Problematic Sponsorship Tags: conflicts of interest, industry-sponsored research

Reader Interactions

Leave a Comment Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

sidebar

Blog Sidebar

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Browse by Topic

  • Academic Research
  • Advocacy
  • Distinguished Dietitians
  • Ethical Sponsorship
  • Industry Spin
  • Industry-Funded Research
  • Interviews
  • Photos
  • Problematic Sponsorship
  • Recommended Reads
  • Reports
  • Statements of Concern
  • Uncategorized

Tags

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics American Beverage Association Andy Bellatti Big Tobacco California Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Center for Science in the Public Interest CEUs Civil Eats Coca-Cola ConAgra conflicts of interest Corn Refiners Association FNCE front groups General Mills Global Energy Balance Network Hershey's industry-funded research junk food Kellogg Kids Eat Right Kraft Kraft Singles lobbying Marion Nestle marketing marketing to children Mars McDonald's meat industry Michele Simon moderation National Dairy Council Nestlé New York Times PepsiCo policy soda soda tax soda taxes sugar The Sugar Association Unilever World Health Organization Yoni Freedhoff

Footer

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Posts

Farewell to Our Supporters

Dear DFPI Supporters, Since February of 2013, we at Dietitians For Professional Integrity have been a voice for uplifting the registered dietitian credential at a time when corporate influences - both overt and covert Read More

Highly Processed Foods Can Negatively Impact Health

Good read from New York Times on how highly processed foods (and the ingredients in many of them) can negatively impact health by creating an imbalance in the gut microbiome. This is the future of nutrition. The fact Read More

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

RSS

  • RSS - Posts

© 2021 Dietitians for Professional Integrity