Editing Funding of science (section)

=== Conflict of Interest ===
{{See also|Conflicts of interest in academic publishing|Politicization of science}}
Disclosure of potential [[Conflict of interest|conflicts of interest]] (COIs) is used by journals to guarantee credibility and transparency of the scientific process. Conflict of interest disclosure, however, is not systematically nor consistently dealt with by journals that publish scientific research results.{{cn|date=March 2025}}

When research is funded by the same agency that can be expected to gain from a favorable outcome there is a potential for biased results and research shows that results are indeed more favorable than would be expected from a more objective view of the evidence.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Vuong|first1=Quan-Hoang|date=2020|title=Reform retractions to make them more transparent|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01694-x|journal=Nature|volume=582|issue=7811|pages=149|doi=10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x|bibcode=2020Natur.582..149V|s2cid=219529301|archive-date=2022-01-23|access-date=2022-11-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220123231633/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01694-x|url-status=live}}</ref> A 2003 [[systematic review]] studied the scope and impact of industry sponsorship in [[biomedical]] research.  The researchers found financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions widespread.  Results  showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions and concluded that "Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways".<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles|volume=4|issue=1|pages=e5|journal=[[PLOS Medicine]]|publisher=[[PLOS]]|author1=Lenard I Lesser |author2=Cara B Ebbeling |author3=Merrill Goozner |author4=David Wypij |author5=David S Ludwig |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005|pmid=17214504|pmc=1764435|date=January 9, 2007|doi-access=free}}</ref> A British study found that a majority of the members on national and food policy committees receive funding from food companies.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest?|volume=4|issue=5|pages=1015–1022|journal=[[Public Health Nutrition]]|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|author=Marion Nestle|doi=10.1079/PHN2001253|pmid=11784415|date=October 2001|doi-access=free}}</ref>

In an effort to cut costs, the [[pharmaceutical industry]] has turned to the use of private, nonacademic research groups (i.e., contract research organizations [CROs]) which can do the work for less money than academic investigators.  In 2001 CROs came under criticism when the editors of 12 major scientific journals issued a joint editorial, published in each journal, on the control over [[clinical trial]]s exerted by sponsors, particularly targeting the use of contracts which allow sponsors to review the studies prior to publication and withhold publication of any studies in which their product did poorly. They further criticized the trial methodology stating that researchers are frequently restricted from contributing to the trial design, accessing the raw data, and interpreting the results.<ref>{{cite journal | pmc = 81460 | pmid=11584570 | volume=165 | issue=6 | title=Sponsorship, authorship and accountability |date=September 2001 | journal=CMAJ | pages=786–8| last1=Davidoff | first1=F | last2=Deangelis | first2=C. D. | last3=Drazen | first3=J. M. | last4=Nicholls | first4=M. G. | last5=Hoey | first5=J | last6=Højgaard | first6=L | last7=Horton | first7=R | last8=Kotzin | first8=S | last9=Nylenna | first9=M | last10=Overbeke | first10=A. J. | last11=Sox | first11=H. C. | last12=Van Der Weyden | first12=M. B. | last13=Wilkes | first13=M. S. }}</ref>

The [[Cochrane Collaboration]], a worldwide group that aims to provide compiled scientific evidence to aid well informed health care decisions,  conducts [[systematic review]]s of [[randomized controlled trial]]s of health care interventions and tries to disseminate the results and conclusions derived from them.<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Cochrane Collaboration|journal=Eur J Clin Nutr|date=August 2005|volume=59|series=Suppl 1|issue=S1|pages=S147–S149|doi=10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602188|pmid=16052183|last1=Scholten|first1=R. J.|last2=Clarke|first2=M|last3=Hetherington|first3=J|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cochrane.org/welcome|title=Welcome|website=www.cochrane.org|access-date=2023-06-21|archive-date=2023-09-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230919133752/https://www.cochrane.org/welcome|url-status=live}}</ref>  A few more recent reviews have also studied the results of non-randomized, [[Observational study|observational studies]]. The systematic reviews are published in the [[Cochrane Library]]. A 2011 study done to disclose possible conflicts of interests in underlying research studies used for medical [[meta-analyses]] reviewed 29 meta-analyses and found that conflicts of interest in the studies underlying the meta-analyses were rarely disclosed.  The 29 meta-analyses reviewed an aggregate of 509 randomized controlled trials. Of these, 318 trials reported funding sources with 219 (69%) industry funded. 132 of the 509 trials reported author disclosures of conflict of interest, with 91 studies (69%) disclosing industry financial ties with one or more authors. However, the information was seldom reflected in the meta-analyses. Only two (7%) reported funding sources and none reported author-industry ties. The authors concluded, "without acknowledgment of COI due to industry funding or author industry financial ties from RCTs included in meta-analyses, readers' understanding and appraisal of the evidence from the meta-analysis may be compromised."<ref>{{cite web|title=How Well Do Meta-Analyses Disclose Conflicts of Interests in Underlying Research Studies|url=http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/how-well-do-meta-analyses-disclose-conflicts-interests-underlying-research-studies|work=The Cochrane Collaboration website|publisher=[[Cochrane Collaboration]]|access-date=24 March 2014|date=2011-06-06|archivedate=2014-12-16|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141216145035/http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/how-well-do-meta-analyses-disclose-conflicts-interests-underlying-research-studies|url-status=deviated}}</ref>

In 2003 researchers looked at the association between authors' published positions on the safety and efficacy in assisting with weight loss of [[olestra]], a [[fat substitute]] manufactured by the [[Procter & Gamble]] (P&G), and their financial relationships with the food and beverage industry.  They found that supportive authors were significantly more likely than critical or neutral authors to have financial relationships with P&G and all authors disclosing an affiliation with P&G were supportive.  The authors of the study concluded: "Because authors' published opinions were associated with their financial relationships, obtaining noncommercial funding may be more essential to maintaining objectivity than disclosing personal financial interests."<ref>{{cite journal|title=Authors' Financial Relationships With the Food and Beverage Industry and Their Published Positions on the Fat Substitute Olestra| pmc=1447808 | pmid=12660215|volume=93| issue=4 |year=2003|pages=664–9 | last1 = Levine | first1 = J | last2 = Gussow | first2 = JD | last3 = Hastings | first3 = D | last4 = Eccher | first4 = A | doi=10.2105/ajph.93.4.664 | journal=American Journal of Public Health}}</ref>

A 2005 study in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]''<ref>{{Cite journal|pmid=15944677|year=2005|last1=Martinson|first1=BC|last2=Anderson|first2=MS|last3=De Vries|first3=R|title=Scientists behaving badly|volume=435|issue=7043|pages=737–8|doi=10.1038/435737a|journal=Nature|bibcode=2005Natur.435..737M|s2cid=4341622}}</ref> surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the [[National Institutes of Health]]). Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.