Scientific studies are often cited as evidence that a food or drug is safe for the public, but does scientific "proof" always represent the truth? Unfortunately, much of the research being done today is funded by corporations and carried out by scientists and institutions who benefit financially when they give their sponsors the desired results. The fact that a for-profit institution funds a study does not necessarily mean that the results will be skewed, but corporate money for research generally comes with "deliverables" attached. If researchers do not cater to the desires of their sponsors, they may risk losing their funding.

When consumers hear about the results of a "new study" on the news, the report almost never reveals who paid for the research. The news media (especially for short "newsbyte" style reports on television) will often grab these stories from press releases written by PR specialists and do no further research into possible conflicts of interest. Because consumers (and doctors!) will often consider the results of a "scientific" study published in the right journal to be objective fact, a positive mention of a product in the press can have a huge impact on profits and stock prices.

Most major universities are also under the influence of corporate money. The March 2000 issue of the Atlantic Monthly reported that industry funding for academic research has gone up nearly 800% in the past twenty years. Corporations get cheap R&D (much of the work is done by overworked and severely underpaid graduate students and postdoctoral fellows) and they get to write the "charitable donation" off as a tax break! As public spending on education declines, universities are more desperate for funding and often have to choose between closing labs or accepting private money.

Some companies have decided to skip the step of funding others' research and are simply paying doctors and researchers to sign their names to ghostwritten studies that they were not involved in. Many of these "experts" are also paid large fees to give talks at medical conferences supporting these papers.

Corporate corruption of science extends to the government as well. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for ensuring the safety of food additives and medicines. The FDA approval process is intended to protect the public from unsafe products, but many of the scientists on the approval committees have industry connections, either through ties to a drug manufacturer or a competitor. The British medical journal The Lancet and the United States House Committee on Government Reforms (headed by a Republican who believes his grandson was harmed by an approved vaccine) have both recently spoken out about these conflicts of interest. The FDA claims it cannot get the expertise it needs if it excludes those with corporate connections from the approval process.

Scientists who don't go along with these financial interests risk damage to their careers. David Healy, a prominent psychiatrist, had his job offer from the University of Toronto taken away after he gave a speech in which he said that Prozac may be making people more suicidal (the drug's manufacturer is a major funder of the institution) and research scientist Arpad Pusztai found himself blacklisted after a distinguished 36 year career when he told television audiences in the UK that he would not eat the genetically engineered potatoes he was studying and did not believe they were safe.

It is important to realize that you shouldn't automatically believe news items about the latest scientific studies. Look into how the studies were done and who funded them (some resources for doing this kind of research are listed below.) Write letters to the editor when your local newspaper prints stories about studies that have conflicts of interest behind them. And remember, even if a study is performed in a perfectly objective manner by an independently funded organization, there is still a chance of error as science doesn't quite know everything just yet. While it may be easier to trust "expert" opinions when it comes to your health, there is no substitute for doing your own research, trusting your instincts, and thinking for yourself.

Resources and Further Reading:

Book: Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future
a great piece of investigative journalism that digs into how what appears to be science is sometimes actually PR. This is an intense and enlightening read that I recommend strongly. read an excerpt

The Kept University  (cached)
an insightful article from The Atlantic Monthly that discusses the way in which corporate funding is skewing the results of academic research.

Integrity in Science
a searchable database for researching which scientists and institutions have ties to industry or other conflicts of interest from an organization that promotes integrity and ethics in science. The site also maintains a related list of nonprofit organizations.

How to Research Front Groups  (cached)
some hints on determining if an organization is a front group for financial interests.

Scandal of Scientists who Take Money for Papers Ghostwritten by Drug Companies  (cached)
an article from a prominent British newspaper about drug manufacturers that pay doctors and researchers to sign their names to articles written in praise of specific medications.

Brave New Nature: Spinning Science into Gold  (cached)
an article about bias in biotechnology and the extreme tactics used to silence scientists who go against the status quo.

Corporate Science Kills  (cached)
an interesting article written by a biologist with many examples of what can go wrong when science is fueled by financial interests.

Drugawareness.org
a site devoted to letting the public know about the dangers of prescription drugs, including news about conflicts of interest.

Dark Clouds Over Toronto Psychiatry Research  (cached)
an article about a prominent psychiatry professor who was offered a position by the University of Toronto, only to have it taken away after giving a lecture that said negative things about Prozac and the pharmaceutical industry in general. He later sued and settled out of court.

Conflict of Interest in Clinical Drug Trials: A Risk Factor for Scientific Misconduct  (cached)
an article by an M.D. outlining the risks of conflict of interest in drug research. It comes to the conclusion that "company-funded research tends to favor that company's products."

British Journal The Lancet States FDA Far Too Cozy With Drug Industry  (cached)
outlines some of the corruption within the FDA approval process for drugs.

Conflict of Interest Taints Vaccine Approval Process, Charges US Report  (cached)
a US Congressional report shows more FDA corruption.