Editor—Bero's editorial on commercial sponsorship for research is important1 because commercial interests can bias the conduct and reporting of research.2 It may, however, leave the impression that pressure on research is an issue only in relation to commercial sponsorship.
I used to believe that public sponsors would allow the independent conduct of research, but experiences have taught me otherwise. Recent stories in the Norwegian mass media indicate that public sponsors may also breach ethical codes for research sponsorship. Newspapers have told their readers that the ministry of education tried to influence research into the effects of an educational reform,3 while a trade union tried to keep secret a report on privatisation of municipal services.4 The National Council of Tobacco and Health asked a research team to change its methods for analysing the economic consequences of smoking: the methods had been agreed on before the project started, but the council later asked the team to switch to a method that would make smoking seem more “costly” to society.5 In the end, the funding was stopped. For all three cases, the sponsors denied any unethical conduct.
Industry's motive for influencing research is obvious (profit), but the motives of public sponsors may be obscure. The perceived benefits from getting the “right” results are probably related more to organisations or interest groups than to individuals. Conceivably, civil servants or other parties see themselves as agents for public interests that entitle them to influence research. In the commercial sector agents are more used to criticism for biased research and may be better aware of the ethical rules. Interestingly, some researchers say they feel less pressure when undertaking research for the pharmaceutical industry than for government.
It is in the interest of all to have unbiased conduct and reporting of research. The same ethical rules should apply for privately funded as well as for publicly funded research.
References
- 1.Bero LA. Accepting commercial sponsorship. BMJ. 1999;319:653–654. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7211.653. . (11 September.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kristiansen IS. Interactions between physicians and drug industry. Between Scylla and Charybdis. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1998;118:1228–1233. . (In Norwegian.) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Blichfelt JF, Deichmann-Sørensen T, Lauvdal T. Towards a new regime for knowledge. Evaluation of the Reform 94. Organisation and collaboration. Oslo: Work Research Institute; 1998. (AFIs rapportserie No 7/98.) (In Norwegian.) [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kagge G. Holding back a FAFO report. Aftenposten 13 Oct 1998:32. (In Norwegian.)
- 5.Hultgren J. Denies attempting to cheat. Aftenposten 18 Apr 1999:8. (In Norwegian.)