solidsurfacealliance.org Blog

This article is about the differences between a govt funded study and an industry funded study. Most of us would be skeptical of any study funded by an industry group, but is it chicanery or subtle biases that skew the results?

In looking at studies done on plastic bottles with BPA content, this is what was found:

” More than 90 percent of the 100-plus government-funded studies performed by independent scientists found health effects from low doses of BPA, while none of the fewer than two dozen chemical-industry-funded studies did. ”

A close rorrelation between the funding source and the studies result is called the “funding effect”. Apparently the scientists make decisions about methods, exposure methods and definitions they use and each decision affects the result of the study.

There is little debate about the existence of the funding effect, but what was suprising was how it often effected the studies. Assuming it was shoddy science or manipulation turned out to be quite wrong, malpractice happens, but it seems that the quality of the studies was not the problem.

Instead, the problem turned out to be asking the right question in the study. If the scientist wants to make his sponsors product look better than the competition, all he has to do is compare the product to one that doesn’t work well, use a higher or lower exposure or dose or publish a single study many times to creat the appearance of supporting studies when in fact there is only one.

There was no surprise when the tobacco companies were found to be experts at this type of “research”, and the editors of scientific journals concluded that having a stake in the outcome made studies suspect regardless of the reputation of the scientists involved.

De linking the research was found to be the answer, something that your average Joe or Jane could have pointed out without a study.

Some one should tell this to the MIA. The major difference between our effort and theirs is that our effort is depending completely on independent researchers and organizations to do the science. Having little cash is an asset, no money to hire it done and the ability to interest researchers to look into these issues will insure that we don’t fall into the trap that the MIA has blundered into, using unpublished studies from hired consultants.

Here is the original article on this subject