Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-59m7g Total loading time: 0.346 Render date: 2022-06-28T21:03:14.411Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Addressing Industry-Funded Research with Criteria for Objectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

In recent years, industry-funded research has come under fire because of concerns that it can be biased in favor of the funders. This article suggests that efforts by philosophers of science to analyze the concept of objectivity can provide important lessons for those seeking to evaluate and improve industry-funded research. It identifies three particularly relevant criteria for objectivity: transparency, reproducibility, and effective criticism. On closer examination, the criteria of transparency and reproducibility turn out to have significant limitations in this context, but the criterion of effective criticism suggests some important strategies for improving the objectivity of industry-funded science.

Type
Cognitive Sciences
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful for the helpful feedback provided by my fellow speakers and the attendees at the Getting Down to Business: Problems and Solutions for Industry-Funded Research symposium at the 2016 PSA meeting. I am also indebted to Marlene Ågerstrand and Iain Kelly for valuable input that strengthened the article.

References

Alberts, B., et al. 2015. “Self-Correction in Science at Work.” Science 348:1420–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beder, Sharon. 2002. Global Spin. Rev. ed. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
Beronius, Anna, Molander, Linda, Ruden, Christina, and Hanberg, Annika. 2014. “Facilitating the Use of Non-standard In Vivo Studies in Health Risk Assessment of Chemicals: A Proposal to Improve Evaluation Criteria and Reporting.” Journal of Applied Toxicology 34:607–17.10.1002/jat.2991CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Besley, John, McCright, Aaron, Zahry, Nagwan, Elliott, Kevin, Kaminski, Norbert, and Martin, Joseph. 2017. “Perceived Conflict of Interest in Health Science Partnerships.” PLoS ONE 12 (4): e0175643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biddle, Justin. 2013. “Institutionalizing Dissent: A Proposal for an Adversarial System of Pharmaceutical Research.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23:325–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biddle, Justin, Kidd, Ian, and Leuschner, Anna. 2017. “Epistemic Corruption and Manufactured Doubt: The Case of Climate Science.” Public Affairs Quarterly 31 (3): 165–87.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, Linda, Burke, Thomas, and Jones, James. 2016. “Informing 21st Century Risk Assessments with 21st Century Science.” Environmental Health Perspectives 24 (4): A60A63..Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert. 2017. “Socializing Medical Research.” In Current Controversies in Values and Science, ed. Elliott, Kevin and Steel, Daniel, 147–60. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chalmers, I., Glasziou, P., and Godlee, F.. 2013. “All Trials Must Be Registered and the Results Published.” British Medical Journal 346:f105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conrad, James, and Becker, Richard. 2011. “Enhancing Credibility of Chemical Safety Studies: Emerging Consensus on Key Assessment Criteria.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119:757–64.10.1289/ehp.1002737CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Melo-Martin, Inmaculada, and Intemann, Kristen. 2009. “How Do Disclosure Policies Fail? Let Us Count the Ways.” FASEB Journal 23:1638–42.Google ScholarPubMed
Doucet, Michel, and Sismondo, Sergio. 2008. “Evaluating Solutions to Sponsorship Bias.” Journal of Medical Ethics 34:627–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, Heather. 2004. “The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity.” Synthese 138:453–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Aled. 2016. “Reproducibility: Team Up with Industry.” Nature 531:299301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, Kevin. 2008. “Scientific Judgment and the Limits of Conflict-of-Interest Policies.” Accountability in Research 15:129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, Kevin 2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin 2014. “Financial Conflicts of Interest and Criteria for Research Credibility.” Erkenntnis 79:917–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin 2016a. “Environment.” In Miseducation: A History of Ignorance Making in America and Beyond, ed. Angulo, A. J., 6112. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin 2016b. “Standardized Study Designs, Value Judgments, and Financial Conflicts of Interest.” Perspectives on Science 24:529–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin 2017. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin, and McKaughan, Daniel. 2009. “How Values in Scientific Discovery and Pursuit Alter Theory Appraisal.” Philosophy of Science 76 (Proceedings): 598611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin, and Volz, David. 2012. “Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Nanotechnology Oversight: Lessons Learned from Drug and Pesticide Safety Testing.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 14:664–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldacre, Ben. 2012. Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. New York: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2015. Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennett, and Bruner, Justin. 2017. “Experimentation by Industrial Selection.” Philosophy of Science 84 (Proceedings): 1008–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennett, and Elliott, Kevin. 2018. “The Promise and Perils of Industry-Funded Science.” Philosophy Compass e12544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, John. 2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med 2:e124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kesselheim, Aaron, and Mello, Michelle. 2007. “Confidentiality Laws and Secrecy in Medical Research: Improving Public Access to Data on Drug Safety.” Health Affairs 26:483–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Lesser, Lenard, Ebbeling, Cara, Goozner, Merrill, Wypij, David, and Ludwig, David. 2007. “Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles.” PLoS Med 4:e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, Elisabeth. 1995. “Objectivity and the Double Standard for Feminist Epistemologies.” Synthese 104:351–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth, and Schweizer, Vanessa. 2014. “Objectivity and a Comparison of Methodological Scenario Approaches for Climate Change Research.” Synthese 191:2049–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, George, Sah, Sunita, and Cain, Daylian. 2012. “The Unintended Consequences of Conflict of Interest Disclosure.” Journal of the American Medical Association 307:669–70.Google ScholarPubMed
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundh, Andreas, Sismondo, Sergio, Lexchin, Joel, Busuioc, Octavian, and Bero, Lisa. 2012. “Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 12:MR000033.Google ScholarPubMed
Markowitz, Gerald, and Rosner, David. 2002. Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
McGarity, Tom, and Wagner, Wendy. 2008. Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Michaels, David. 2008. Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moermond, Caroline, Kase, Robert, Korkaric, Muris, and Agerstrand, Marlene. 2016. “CRED: Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35:12971309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molloy, Jennifer C. 2011. “The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open Data Means Better Science.” PLOS Biology 9:e1001195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, John P., et al. 2009. “Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend upon Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117:309–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Science Board. 2016. Science and Engineering Indicators, 2016. NSB-2016-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik. 2008. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert. 2012. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, Hans, ed. 2010. The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, David, and Elliott, Kevin. 2013. “Taking Financial Relationships into Account When Assessing Research.” Accountability in Research 20:184205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Resnik, David, and Elliott, Kevin 2015. “Bisphenol A and Risk Management Ethics.” Bioethics 29:182–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Society, Royal. 2012. Science as an Open Enterprise. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. 1993. Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case against Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin 2007. Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Richard. 2005. “Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies.” PLoS Medicine 2 (5): e138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandenburg, Laura N., and Prins, Gail S.. 2016. “Clarity in the Face of Confusion: New Studies Tip the Scales on Bisphenol A (BPA).” Andrology 4:561–64.Google Scholar
vom Saal, Frederick, and Hughes, Claude. 2005. “An Extensive New Literature concerning Low-Dose Effects of Bisphenol A Shows the Need for a New Risk Assessment.” Environmental Health Perspectives 113:926–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickson, Fern, and Wynne, Brian. 2012. “Ethics of Science for Policy in the Environmental Governance of Biotechnology: MON810 Maize in Europe.” Ethics, Policy and Environment 15:321–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Addressing Industry-Funded Research with Criteria for Objectivity
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Addressing Industry-Funded Research with Criteria for Objectivity
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Addressing Industry-Funded Research with Criteria for Objectivity
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *