On Scientific Integrity

While debate over industry funding of research is nothing new on college campuses, it remains contentious.
 
THE WAGER recently published an editorial exchange that was initiated by Peter Adams and his colleagues at the Center for Gambling Studies at the University of Auckland. THE WAGER editorial board members David Korn, assistant professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences at the University of Toronto; Charles Wellford, professor of criminology at the University of Maryland; Dean Hestermann, director of public affairs for Harrah's Entertainment; and Howard Shaffer, director, and Debi LaPlante, research fellow, both at Harvard Medical School's Division on Addictions all contributed responses to stimulate thoughtful dialogue about scientific integrity and to emphasize the need for open discussion about industry funding.

Adams' editorial describes three university research colleagues who take a much needed weekend break at the beach and find their discussion keeps returning to the very thing they are trying to escape: research! James, Margie and Patrick, the main characters of the story, converse throughout the weekend about whether gambling researchers should receive funding directly from the gaming industry - an age-old but important question that researchers from all walks face when considering industry- sourced funding. They offer a wide range of opinions as they discuss ethics, responsibility, long-term funding, research independence, practicality, perceptions, misperceptions and much more in their pursuit of the "right answer."

Their lively exchange includes arguments such as:

"…if we receive money directly from something like the casino, we will quickly become beholden to them. They will call the shots on what we do and what we say…they decide whether or not it's published… . They can also decide whether or not we get more money for future projects."
"Look what happened with the tobacco industry… . They managed it so well by employing their own researchers and funding others such that any public good research on harms was countered by positive findings."

"The moment a researcher accepts funding from the industry, their research from then on is tainted by the connection… people start talking about them as being in the pocket of the industry. No matter how carefully you conduct the study, other people will… accuse you of appeasing the industry."

AND

"It's simply a matter of perception. Most medical faculties… are involved in drug research funded directly by pharmaceutical companies. There was resistance at first, but now such research is mainstream. It is simply a matter of universities working out adequate protocols around information ownership and reporting."

"[The industry is] getting increasingly concerned about the rise of problem gambling - it's a scourge for them, as it is for us - they don't want to be viewed as ripping off the weak… and for another, they simply can't afford to be seen as manipulating the facts. The media and the public would be outraged - it wouldn't be worth their while."

"The larger gambling providers are in the game for the long term. They want to know how best to manage problems because in the end they know that problems brushed under the carpet have a nasty habit of jumping up again and biting them. Their interest is in how to ensure the environment can sustain their business… . They are not out to control the researchers!"

"There is simply no significant source of research funding other than the industry…not receiving funds will achieve very little and allow the research dollar to be wasted on low priority projects."

James, Margie and Patrick bring many interesting and important topics to the table, but their weekend exchange does not result in conclusive or consensual answers to these many issues. At this point, this is acceptable. As the "Editor's Comments" note, "Open dialogue could play a role in preventing subterranean divisions and hostilities from further splitting within the gambling research community."

Just as the fictitious colleagues have differing opinions on research funding, so too did the editorial board members that reviewed the scenario in THE WAGER. Comments range from "THE WAGER presents this complex issue within a welcoming dialogue. There is formidable challenge and opportunity to clarify the specifics …" to "What is missing is data… The author raises an important issue but does little to advance the issue…" and "The clever format - an opinion piece, not a scholarly article - permits the colleagues to engage in what might be described as ad hominem attack via innuendo."

THE WAGER welcomes varying opinions on this subject and on the fictitious depiction of it. These variations will only serve to spark continued and much needed dialogue among researchers, government officials and the industry about the relationship of research providers to research funders.

To read the editorial exchange in its entirety, go towww.thewager.org and click on back issues, then click on past editorials.