Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bp2c4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T00:10:53.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of private interests on research in behavioural public policy: A system-level problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2023

Liam Kofi Bright ,
Jonathan Parry  and
Johanna Thoma Open the ORCID record for Johanna Thoma [Opens in a new window]
Liam Kofi Bright
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK L.K.Bright@lse.ac.uk; https://www.liamkofibright.com/ J.Parry1@lse.ac.uk; https://jonathan-parry.weebly.com/
Jonathan Parry
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK L.K.Bright@lse.ac.uk; https://www.liamkofibright.com/ J.Parry1@lse.ac.uk; https://jonathan-parry.weebly.com/
Johanna Thoma
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Universität Bayreuth, GWII, Bayreuth, Germany Johanna.Thoma@uni-bayreuth.de; https://johannathoma.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chater & Loewenstein argue that i-frame research has been coopted by private interests opposed to system-level reform, leading to ineffective interventions. They recommend that behavioural scientists refocus on system-level interventions. We suggest that the influence of private interests on research is problematic for wider normative and epistemic reasons. A system-level intervention to shield research from private influence is needed.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e150
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, P. J. (2011). Ways in which gambling researchers receive funding from gambling industry sources. International Gambling Studies, 11(2), 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L. M. (2016). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the New Gilded Age (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bright, L. K., & Heesen, R. (2023). To be scientific is to be communist. Social Epistemology, 37(3), 249–258. doi:10.1080/02691728.2022.2156308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, T. (2008). The constitution of equality. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, T. (2012). Money in politics. In Estlund, D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of political philosophy (pp. 241–260). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holman, B., & Bruner, J. P. (2015). The problem of intransigently biased agents. Philosophy of Science, 82(5), 956–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodny, N. (2014). Rule over none II: Social equality and the justification of democracy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 42(4), 287–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ, 326(7400), 1167–1170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovett, A. (2024) [Forthcoming]. Democratic failures and the ethics of democracy. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lovett, A., & Zuehl, J. (2022). The possibility of democratic autonomy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 50(4), 467–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pinto, M. F. (2017). To know or better not to: Agnotology and the social construction of ignorance in commercially driven research. Science & Technology Studies, 30(2), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viehoff, D. (2014). Democratic equality and political authority. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 42(4), 337–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, J. O., O'Connor, C., & Bruner, J. P. (2020). How to beat science and influence people: Policymakers and propaganda in epistemic networks. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71(4), 1157–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar