Sources of Scientific Bias: Both Money and Beliefs

Max Dunn — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:03:00 -0800

When trying to discredit a scientist’s work, critics sometimes simply note: “They received funding from XYZZY corporation.” It is interesting that often nothing more is said, as if it is apparent that taking any money from a party with a vested interest will inevitably skew the results. This seems like a pretty harsh position, but there is some basis to this claim.

For instance, new research looked at drug studies and found that while the results of the study were not likely to be biased, the conclusion from those results were. In particular, they found that studies funded by a single drug company have a 55% rate of favorable results that is transformed into a 92% rate for favorable conclusions, representing a 37% gap. The gap shrinks to 21% (57% to 79%) when two or more drug companies provide support. Yet the gap vanishes entirely for studies done by non-profit institutions alone or even in conjunction with drug companies. These findings suggest a disconnect between the data that underlie the results and the interpretation or “spin” of these data that constitutes the conclusions.[1]

So it is apparent that receiving funding from a particular source that has a vested interest in the outcome will likely affect the conclusion of a study.

But are there other biases besides funding sources that can affect the results or conclusions of scientific work? What if a researcher isn’t taking any outside funding but has a passionate belief about what they are researching – will this affect their work as well?

Eschew Obfuscation: Sources of Scientific Bias: Both Money and Beliefs

Sources of Scientific Bias: Both Money and Beliefs