tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/research-bias-32227/articlesResearch bias – The Conversation2024-03-03T07:50:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2239322024-03-03T07:50:46Z2024-03-03T07:50:46ZBig companies, like Nestlé, are funding health research in South Africa - why this is wrong<p>In 2021, the director of the African Research University Alliance Centre of Excellence in Food Security at the University of Pretoria was <a href="https://www.nestle.com/media/pressreleases/allpressreleases/board-of-directors-agm-2021">appointed</a> to the board of the transnational food corporation Nestlé. </p>
<p>At the time a group of more than <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-11-23-on-board-with-nestle-academics-express-concern-over-conflicts-of-interest/">200 senior academics</a> wrote an open letter,
about conflicts of interest. Nestlé’s portfolio of foods, <a href="https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/corporate/story/60-of-nestles-food-portfolio-unhealthy-says-report-company-on-firefighting-mode-298388-2021-06-01">by its own admission</a>, includes more than 60% that don’t meet the definition of healthy products. </p>
<p>In December last year, the same centre announced it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Nestlé. It signalled their intent to “forge a transformative
partnership” to shape “the future of food and nutrition research and education” and transform “<a href="https://www.futureafrica.science/news-events/all-news/item/UP%20and%20%20Nestl%C3%A9%20forge%20a%20transformative%20partnership">Africa’s food systems</a>”. </p>
<p>This is not an isolated case. </p>
<p>Across African universities, companies with products that are harmful to health fund health-related research and education.</p>
<p>Nestlé, for example, <a href="https://www.nestle.com/about/research-development/news/expertise-sharing-african-students">“shares expertise”</a> with “eight universities in Africa”. </p>
<p>These include the Institute of Applied Science and Technology at the <a href="https://www.ug.edu.gh/news/ug-and-nestl%C3%A9-collaborate-advance-sustainable-and-affordable-%20nutrition">University of Ghana</a> and the <a href="https://www.csrs.ch/en/blog/centre-suisse-de-recherches-scientifiques-and-nestle-take-stock-their-collaboration">Centre Suisse de Recherches Scientifiques</a> in
Côte d’Ivoire. </p>
<p>Activities funded under agreements with universities include internships, seminars and training programmes as well as sponsorships for graduate research students. </p>
<p>In South Africa, Nestlé has funded a prize in paediatrics for final year medical students at the <a href="https://www.wits.ac.za/media/wits-university/students/graduations/2022-graduations/14%20Dec%2014-30%20December_38.pdf#page=23">University of the Witwatersrand</a>. It also funds a two-year paediatric gastroenterology fellowship at <a href="https://www.nestlenutrition-institute.org/education/fellowship/stellenbosch-university">Stellenbosch University.</a></p>
<h2>Bias – even if it’s unconscious</h2>
<p>Financial links between corporations and academic institutions are well known to lead to conflicts of interest.</p>
<p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28207928/">A 2017 paper</a>, Industry sponsorship and Research Outcome, found that “industry funding leads researchers to favour corporations either consciously or unconsciously”. </p>
<p>Those advising governments and charities on dietary policy warn how “current or past financial or personal associations with interested parties make it difficult <a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3393-2">to distinguish subtle, unconscious bias from deliberately concealed impropriety</a>.” </p>
<p>Other research found that of 168 industry-funded studies, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/12/studies-health-nutrition-sugar-coca-cola-marion-nestle">156 (93%) showed biased results</a>, all in favour of industry sponsors. </p>
<p>In 2018 around 13% of research articles published in the top 10 most-cited nutrition journals were <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33326431/">backed by and favourable to the food industry</a>. Such backing is often hidden. </p>
<h2>A growing problem</h2>
<p>The world is facing a pandemic of non-communicable diseases – hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer – all linked to the consequences of poor nutrition such as <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight">stunting and obesity</a>.</p>
<p>A 2023 Lancet commission reports that <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00590-1/fulltext">“just four industry sectors already account for at least a third of global deaths”</a>, one of which is unhealthy food. </p>
<p>These four industry sectors are expanding their markets in Africa and elsewhere in the global south where the inadequate regulation of the sales and marketing of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09581596.2021.2019681">unhealthy foods, drinks, alcohol, tobacco</a> and agrichemical products provides opportunities for corporations to exploit.</p>
<h2>Where there’s smoke …</h2>
<p>The most well-known commercial products that harm health are tobacco-related, now widely regulated to decrease harm.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7609230/">tobacco industry used many tactics to prevent their regulation</a>. They funded research and whole institutions to produce “evidence” to support the industry or sow doubt about the harmful impacts of tobacco. </p>
<p>In 2019 public health academics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa discovered that the psychiatry department had accepted funding from the <a href="https://www.pmi.com/our-transformation/delivering-a-smoke-free-future">Philip Morris Foundation for a Smoke-Free World</a>. </p>
<p>The department subsequently cancelled the contract. This followed <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2019-10-18-00-big-tobaccos-r1m-for-uct-stubbed-out/">outrage</a> from the broader university community. In 2020, the UCT Council adopted a policy <a href="https://commerce.uct.ac.za/reep/articles/2020-01-30-uct-council-adopts-policy-tobacco-funding">disallowing</a> any employee from accepting funding from the tobacco industry. </p>
<p>In another example scientific research published in <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5339699/">1967</a> implicated saturated fat as the main cause of heart disease. In so <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27802504/">doing it downplayed the role of sugar</a>. It took over 40 years to uncover that this research was paid for by the sugar industry. </p>
<p>The decline in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.22816">research funding</a> in South Africa means that academics need to be especially vigilant. We need to protect our higher education institutions from research bias.</p>
<p>It is not enough to simply declare these interests and assume that this will eliminate the conflict of interest.</p>
<p>Instead, public health academics need to develop much more robust systems to manage conflicts of interest at all levels of academia.</p>
<p>Governance structures at universities need mechanisms to respond to initiatives which run counter to public health. </p>
<p>The Department of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Cape Town has called for the <a href="https://health.uct.ac.za/department-paediatrics/child-advocacy-campaigns/protect-support-and-promote-breastfeeding">end to sponsorship</a> by infant formula milk companies for education, research or policy development. </p>
<p>An online course and toolkit for research ethics committees on conflict of interest in health research provides some <a href="https://health.uct.ac.za/school-public-health/conflict-interest-health-research">practical guidance</a>.</p>
<p>These and other initiatives point the way forward for universities to be alert to the dangers of these “gift relationships” and to be better equipped to protect their integrity.</p>
<p><em>Lori Lake contributed to this article. She is a Communication and Education Specialist at the Children’s Institute, Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Cape Town.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223932/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Wynberg works for the University of Cape Town, South Africa where she holds a research chair funded by the Department of Science and Innovation and National Research Foundation. She serves on the Boards of Biowatch South Africa, and the Union for Ethical BioTrade. This article is written in her personal capacity and does not represent the views of any of these organisations. No benefit will accrue to any organisation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tanya Doherty receives funding from the South African Medical Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Tomlinson and Susan Goldstein do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Financial links between corporations and health research invariably lead to conflicts of interest.Susan Goldstein, Associate Professor in the SAMRC Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost Effective Lessons in Systems Strengthening South Africa), University of the WitwatersrandMark Tomlinson, Professor in the Institute for Life Course Health Research, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch UniversityRachel Wynberg, Professor and DST/NRF Bio-economy Research Chair, University of Cape TownTanya Doherty, Professor and Chief specialist scientist, South African Medical Research CouncilLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2159422023-12-07T13:26:48Z2023-12-07T13:26:48ZWhen research study materials don’t speak their participants’ language, data can get lost in translation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563460/original/file-20231204-23-ka52z2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2032%2C1462&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some approaches to translation are more true to the aims of the text than others.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/international-communication-translation-royalty-free-illustration/1150757275">arthobbit/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine your mother has cancer. You just heard about a promising new experimental treatment and want to enroll her in the study. However, your mother immigrated to the U.S. as an adult and speaks limited English. When you reach out to the research team, they tell you she is ineligible because they are recruiting only English speakers. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is an all too likely outcome of a scenario like this, because non-English speakers are frequently <a href="https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2017.25.112-115">excluded from clinical trials</a> and research studies in the U.S.</p>
<p>Despite efforts to increase research participation, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318208289a">racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented</a> in results. A review of 5,008 papers in three pediatric journals from 2012 to 2021 revealed that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3828">only 9% of these studies included non-English speaking</a> volunteers. </p>
<p>Language is a <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706">key barrier to participation</a>, as even those with some English proficiency are less likely to participate in studies when recruitment materials <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706">aren’t in their native language</a>. Language barriers also hinder a person’s ability to provide <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500028">informed consent</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.70517">to participate</a>.</p>
<p>This problem is not likely to fade away. The number of people with limited English proficiency in the U.S. grew by 80% between 1990 and 2013, going from nearly <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/limited-english-proficient-population-united-states-2013">14 million to 25.1 million people</a>. As of 2022, this number rose to <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigration-trends#lep">26.5 million people</a>. Excluding people with limited English proficiency is not only unethical, as these groups deserve the same access to experimental and evolving therapies as the English-speaking population, but also limits <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706">how applicable research findings are</a> to the general population.</p>
<p>One way to eliminate language barriers is by translating research documents. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NG1Yem8AAAAJ&hl=en">As a translation scholar</a>, I strive to discover ways to improve translation quality to benefit the research community and broader society. Translation in research, however, is not straightforward. Not only must the translated materials be accurate, they also have to serve their intended purpose.</p>
<p>The most commonly used method to evaluate translation quality in health research <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278716648191">is backtranslation</a> – translating the translated text into the original language and assessing how well it matches the original text. And yet, this method <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301">relies on outdated scholarship</a> from the 1970s, perpetuating serious misconceptions about how translation works.</p>
<h2>Understanding translation</h2>
<p>Translation involves much more than just transferring written words from one language to another. For many health researchers, the goal of translation is to <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/411434">transfer meaning</a> so it remains intact in a new language. Along these lines, the translator is meant to be a conduit of perfect linguistic equivalence. Yet, current work in the field of translation studies indicates this perfect match or meaning transfer is <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Translation-Studies/Bassnett/p/book/9780415506731">only an illusion</a>.</p>
<p>A translator is not a conduit of meaning, but both a reader of the original text and a writer of the translation. As such, translators <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315678627-90/positioning-theo-hermans">have their own positioning</a> in the world that comes with a set of conscious or unconscious values and knowledge that bias how they read and write. Translation is a <a href="https://translation.utdallas.edu/what-is-translation-studies/translation-and-reading/">process of interpretation</a> regardless of how objective a translator aims to be.</p>
<p>Furthermore, languages do not match structurally or culturally. For instance, the English sentence “I arrived late” structurally corresponds to the Spanish “Yo llegué tarde” because the grammar lines up. But because Spanish expresses subject information through verb endings (“lleg-ué”), the “Yo” is normally interpreted as contrastive, meaning that “I” was the one who arrived late as opposed to someone else.</p>
<p>A perfect match in backtranslation often reflects a translation that is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278716648191">too similar to the original</a>, such that it often contradicts the norms of the translated language. For instance, a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278705275342">health status questionnaire</a> translated “My thinking is clear” into Portuguese as “O meu pensamento é claro.” Despite good backtranslation results, patients in Brazil stated it was unclear. Changing it to “Consigo pensar claramente” (“I am able to think clearly”) communicated more effectively and naturally with the target population.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563462/original/file-20231204-17-l9egxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Health care professional holding clipboard while talking to a patient" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563462/original/file-20231204-17-l9egxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563462/original/file-20231204-17-l9egxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563462/original/file-20231204-17-l9egxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563462/original/file-20231204-17-l9egxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563462/original/file-20231204-17-l9egxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563462/original/file-20231204-17-l9egxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563462/original/file-20231204-17-l9egxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Patients with limited English proficiency are less likely to participate in research studies if the materials aren’t in their primary language.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/female-mental-health-professional-talks-with-royalty-free-image/917744736">SDI Productions/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Translation scholars suggest that a more realistic, descriptive and explanatory approach to translation is one governed by <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760506">what the commissioner wants to achieve</a> with the translation. Under this view, the translator makes decisions according to the type of text being translated and to the purpose of the translation.</p>
<p>How translators approach texts and what strategies they use to translate them varies with each document. Some texts require closer adherence to the words of the original than others. For instance, legal or regulatory considerations require translating the chemical ingredients list of a medication more closely to the structure of the source than a recruitment flyer that aims to convince readers to participate in a study. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278716648191">Translators of research documents</a> need to determine the needs of the specific text in collaboration with both the researchers and representatives of the population they’re studying.</p>
<h2>Translation affects research results</h2>
<p>Recent studies show that translation can affect data validity and reliability. An inadequate approach may result in translated materials that don’t work as intended. For instance, a survey may produce <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500115">incomplete or incorrect data</a> if participants misunderstand or are unclear about the questions.</p>
<p>My team and I investigated how different translation approaches affected how readers responded to translated materials. We had bilingual participants review two versions of a survey measuring perceptions of stress. Each version was translated into Spanish in a different way. </p>
<p>One of the two translations was produced with a literal approach that aimed to be as equivalent as possible to the original, while the other followed a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278716648191">functionalist approach</a> that focused on achieving the purpose specified for the translation. In this case, the goal was to obtain data on how a Spanish-speaking population perceives daily stress.</p>
<p>We asked participants to review the two translated versions of the survey, then indicate any unclear sections and which version they preferred. We found that participants <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500115">preferred the functionalist translation</a> and identified a higher number of problems in the translation focused on equivalence. Participants commented that the “equivalent” translation was more difficult to understand, too direct and seemed obviously translated.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563463/original/file-20231204-25-uls439.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Close-up of the first page of the 'A' section of an English-Spanish dictionary" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563463/original/file-20231204-25-uls439.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563463/original/file-20231204-25-uls439.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563463/original/file-20231204-25-uls439.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563463/original/file-20231204-25-uls439.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563463/original/file-20231204-25-uls439.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563463/original/file-20231204-25-uls439.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563463/original/file-20231204-25-uls439.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A literal translation may not best serve the aims of its commissioner.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/english-spanish-dictionary-royalty-free-image/483136313">parema/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other studies have shown that <a href="https://aclanthology.org/R15-1014">translated materials</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2018.10.2">are less accessible overall</a> compared with the original documents. Researchers have also found that some translation approaches increase reading complexity. One study found that a survey used to measure the health progress of patients translated with a functionalist approach <a href="https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJA-17-0018">had better readability</a> than published counterparts that used a more literal approach.</p>
<p>The translation process is complicated. Lack of awareness of its complexities can affect not only equitable participation in research but also the validity and reliability of its methodology and findings. But with the right approach, translation can increase a study’s reach, diversify its data and lead to new findings and ideas. Reaching out to a translation scholar before starting a project can help scholars prevent their data and research from getting lost in translation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215942/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sonia Colina works for the National Center for Interpretation at the University of Arizona. She has received funding from the National Institutes of Health</span></em></p>Translation involves more than just transferring words from one language to another. Better translations of study materials can improve both the diversity of study participants and research results.Sonia Colina, Professor of Spanish and Portuguese, University of ArizonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2097712023-08-17T12:35:12Z2023-08-17T12:35:12ZPotentially faulty data spotted in surveys of drug use and other behaviors among LGBQ youth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541296/original/file-20230804-26-63jilc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=202%2C166%2C7737%2C5130&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A new study found that youth were providing extreme or untruthful responses to CDC surveys on LGBQ student health. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/female-hands-of-a-student-taking-a-test-royalty-free-image/1305362771?phrase=students+taking+a+survey&adppopup=true">FG Trade/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Federal data on LGBQ student health <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13957">contain a significant amount of potentially exaggerated or untruthful responses</a>, raising questions about how they might skew people’s understanding of risky behavior among teens. These inaccuracies affect some responses more than others. That’s according to an analysis my colleagues and I did of high school surveys administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, better known as the CDC.</p>
<p>Without accounting for this invalid data, the CDC results suggest that for every heterosexual boy who uses steroids, three LGBQ boys use steroids. After accounting for the invalid data, neither group is shown to use steroids more. In contrast, disparities for being bullied or considering suicide were not affected by potentially invalid data.</p>
<p>Over 12,800 high school students during the 2018-2019 school year reported whether they identified as LGBQ – that is, lesbian, gay, bisexual or questioning – or heterosexual on the national <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/data.htm">Youth Risk Behavior Survey</a>. They also responded to items related to their health and well-being. </p>
<p>We first estimated what the risk disparities between LGBQ and heterosexual youth were before accounting for potentially invalid data. We then used a machine-learning algorithm to detect response patterns that suggested when youth were providing extreme or untruthful responses.</p>
<p>For example, we treated their responses with suspicion if they reported eating carrots four or more times every day and said they were impossibly tall. That means we gave less weight to their responses when we re-estimated all of the disparities. We then saw how the disparities changed after the potentially invalid responses were taken into account.</p>
<p>After accounting for invalid data, disparities in drug use – including steroids – injected drugs, cocaine, ecstasy and pain medication without a prescription were not as pronounced. LGBQ boys appeared to use injected drugs four times as often as heterosexual boys. But after accounting for the likely invalid data, neither group was more likely to use injected drugs. </p>
<p>Yet, while some outcomes were susceptible to invalid data, others were not. For example, LGBQ boys and girls were about twice as likely to be bullied at school and two to three times as likely to consider suicide. This shows that not all outcomes are equally affected by invalid data. </p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>The Youth Risk Behavior Survey provides vital information on the health and behaviors of high school students. It informs research regarding <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm">teen sexual behaviors, drug use and suicide risk</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13957">Our study</a> and others using different methods to account for invalid data <a href="https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11422112">consistently</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304407">find</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419888892">that</a> LGBQ students are at a much higher risk for being bullied and for suicide, consistent with <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm">CDC reports</a> on these outcomes. </p>
<p>It is critical to address the <a href="https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights">ongoing stigmatization that LGBTQ+ people face</a> to reduce these mental health disparities. Yet, when researchers don’t check for invalid data, they might conclude that other differences are larger and more deserving of attention and resources than they are.</p>
<p>Policymakers and researchers must ensure that large-scale data collection efforts have safeguards for data quality.</p>
<p>We asked the CDC for a comment on our study’s findings. In response, they directed our attention to an <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/faq.htm">FAQ page</a> that discussed validity and reliability in a general sense. The CDC’s response did not specifically address the issue of how invalid data can have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is a significant concern raised by our research.</p>
<h2>What other research is being done</h2>
<p>Other studies have found that invalid data can disproportionately influence <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13957">low-incidence outcomes like heroin use</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000479">minority populations</a>, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1300/J145v06n02_02">adoptees</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/152822X06289161">disabled</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14534297">individuals</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024824">racial or ethnic minorities</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/152822X06289161">immigrants</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14534297">transgender individuals</a>.</p>
<p>Moreover, the issue of invalid data is not confined to youth surveys. Studies examining <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287837">public health behaviors</a> during the COVID-19 pandemic and surveys on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617698203">sexual orientation among adults</a> have also encountered invalid responses, raising further questions about their accuracy.</p>
<p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209771/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joseph Cimpian receives funding from the U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences and the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p>Potential inaccuracies in CDC high school surveys may have created an exaggerated perception that LGBQ youth engage in risky behaviors, new research shows.Joseph Cimpian, Professor of Economics and Education Policy, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2080532023-06-28T16:56:12Z2023-06-28T16:56:12ZPoliticians believe voters to be more conservative than they really are<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534112/original/file-20230626-19-k2azps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C11%2C7360%2C4891&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Could this be what politicians have in mind when they invoke the "hardworking family"? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/happy-parents-sitting-on-sofa-looking-1056238637">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) won a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/26/far-right-afd-wins-local-election-watershed-moment-german-politics">district council election for the first time</a> on Monday. Robert Sesselmann’s victory as district administrator – the equivalent of a mayor – in the Eastern town of Sonneberg comes only a day after Greece’s conservatives clinched an outright majority in the country’s parliamentary polls, topping left-wing parties Syriza and Pasok. Meanwhile, the Spanish left is also bracing for an early general election on 23 July, after losing to the Spanish conservative Partido Popular (PP) and far-right Vox parties in May.</p>
<p>Such developments might send a signal to European politicians to lean further to the right in a scramble to save votes. Yet our latest research, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/do-politicians-outside-the-united-states-also-think-voters-are-more-conservative-than-they-really-are/D21A9077EE2435F2B910394378E96450">published this month</a>, shows that politicians’ perceptions may not actually reflect voters’ true interests and opinions. Worse still: it appears to be an error that many other politicians have already made.</p>
<h2>866 officials surveyed</h2>
<p>In an influential 2018 study, David Broockman and Christopher Skovron <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/bias-in-perceptions-of-public-opinion-among-political-elites/2EF080E04D3AAE6AC1C894F52642E706">showed</a> that US politicians overestimated the share of citizens who held conservative views. On questions related to state intervention in the economy, gun control, immigration, or abortion, the majority of both Republicans and Democratic representatives surveyed believed that a greater share of citizens supported right-wing policies than what public-opinion data revealed.</p>
<p>We were curious whether conservative bias in politicians’ perceptions of public opinion was limited to American politics or was a broader phenomenon. To explore this, we interviewed 866 politicians in four democracies that whose political systems differ from each other and from that of the United States: Belgium, Canada, Germany and Switzerland. The politicians interviewed spanned the full political spectrum, including politicians from the radical right (Vlaams Belang, SVP/UDC), moderate centre-right (CDU/CSU, Conservative Party of Canada), centre-left parties (SPD, PS, SP.a-Vooruit) and radical left (PTB, Die Linke).</p>
<p>Participating officials, who included members of national and subnational (provinces, cantons, regions, Länders) legislative bodies, were asked to evaluate where general public opinion (but also that of their party voters) stood on a range of issues: pension age, redistribution, workers’ rights, euthanasia, child adoption by same-sex couples and immigration. We then compared their answers with public opinion data that we evaluated using large-scale representative surveys that we fielded in the four countries at the same time.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534064/original/file-20230626-23-k4jhtz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534064/original/file-20230626-23-k4jhtz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534064/original/file-20230626-23-k4jhtz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534064/original/file-20230626-23-k4jhtz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534064/original/file-20230626-23-k4jhtz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534064/original/file-20230626-23-k4jhtz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534064/original/file-20230626-23-k4jhtz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Fourni par l'auteur</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our findings are clear and straightforward. In all four countries, and on a majority of issues, politicians consistently overestimate the share of citizens who hold right-wing views. Figure 1 reports the average gap between politicians’ perceptions of general public opinion and citizens’ actual opinions (circles), and the gap between their estimation of their party’s electorate opinion and the observed opinion within that electorate (triangles). These estimates are reported for each issue domain and each country we studied. Both measures reveal a substantial and largely consistent conservative bias in politicians’ perceptions – both for the overall public and party electorates. Importantly, politicians’ overestimation of how many citizens hold right-wing views is consistent across the ideological spectrum. Politicians hold a conservative bias regardless of whether they represent left- or right-wing parties.</p>
<p>While the overall pattern is remarkably stable, we also uncovered important variation across issue domains. For example, citizens are much less in favour of raising the pension age than politicians think. There were also differences between countries, such as a smaller conservative bias in Wallonia (Belgium). But the global picture is clear: the overwhelming majority of politicians we studied (81%) believe that the public holds more conservative views than is the case. </p>
<p>The only exception appears to be when politicians estimate public opinion on immigration-related policies. When asked about issues such as family reunion, asylum or border control, there is also a misperception of public opinion among politicians but not always in the conservative direction. Politicians in Belgium (both Flanders and Wallonia) and in Switzerland have a conservative bias on such issues, but in Canada and Germany, there is a large <em>liberal</em> bias in politicians’ perception of public opinion regarding immigration.</p>
<h2>The result of lobbying?</h2>
<p>The big question is <em>why</em> politicians perceive public opinion to be more right-wing than it truly is. One explanation provided by Broockman and Skovron for the United States was that right-wing activists are more visible and tend to contact their politicians more often, skewing representatives’ information environment to the right. We tested this explanation in our studied countries, but could not find evidence to support it. The right-wing citizens in our sample are not more politically active, and therefore visible, than their left-wing counterparts. Yet the idea that politicians’ information environment might be skewed to the right can find support in other work.</p>
<p><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/spsr.12224">Earlier research</a> has shown that politicians tend to receive disproportionally right-skewed information from business interest groups. Social media, which politicians use more and more, also tends to be dominated <a href="https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/148014700/review_Schradie.pdf">by conservative views</a>, and as politicians spend more time online, and their news media diet is growingly filtered through social media feeds that create interactions and feedback skewed to the right, their views may be accordingly distorted. It has also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542100037X">been shown</a> that politicians tend to pay more attention to the policy preferences of more affluent and educated citizens, and those citizens vote more often and hold more often right-wing views, at least on economic issues.</p>
<p>The observed conservative bias might also be associated with what social psychologist call “pluralistic ignorance” (i.e., misperceptions of others’ opinions). When it comes to liberals, for example, social psychologists have shown that they tend to exaggerate the uniqueness of their own opinion (<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24247730/">“false uniqueness”</a>. Conservatives, by contrast, perceive their opinions as more common than they are (<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167214537834">“false consensus”</a>). These processes could explain why we find a conservative bias found among both liberal and conservative politicians. Finally, recent election results such the Presidential elections in France, or the recent parliamentary elections in Greece and Finland, with the growth of the radical right and the victories of right-wing conservative parties, might also have sent a signal to politicians about the conservativeness of citizens that is not necessarily in step with their actual opinions.</p>
<h2>A threat to representative democracy</h2>
<p>Irrespective of the sources of the conservative bias, the fact that it is persistently present in a variety of different democratic systems has major implications for the well-functioning of representative democracy. Representative democracy builds upon the idea that elected politicians are responsive to citizens, meaning that they by and large attempt to promote policy initiatives that are in line with people’s preferences. If politicians’ ideas of what the public thinks – let alone their own party’s voters – are systematically biased toward one ideological side, then the political representation chain is weakened. Politicians may erroneously pursue right-wing policies that do not in fact have the popular support, and may refrain from working to advance (incorrectly perceived) progressive goals. But if citizens are less conservative than what politicians perceive them to be, the supply side of policy is at risk of being consistently suboptimal and may have broader, system-wide implications such as growing disaffection with democracy and democratic institutions.The recent social unrest in France regarding raising legal pension age might be an example of a policy debate in which governments perceive public opinion leaning more to the right than it actually is.</p>
<p>The situation is not without hope, however, and access to accurate information seems to play an important role. A <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/spsr.12495">2020 study</a> in Switzerland has shown that a sustained use of direct democracy might help politicians better understand public opinion. In the same logic, a recent study of US elected officials show that they tend to misperceive support for politically motivated violence among their supporters. But when exposed to reliable and accurate information, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116851119">they update and correct their (mis) perceptions</a>. Building on such studies, we believe that more work needs to be done both to understand the sources and prevalence of conservative bias, and to identify additional ways of offsetting it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208053/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jean-Benoit Pilet has received research grants from the European Research Council (ERC) and the Belgian National Fondation for Scientific Research (FNRS) </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lior Sheffer has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).</span></em></p>A survey of nearly 900 politicians in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Canada reveals that they systematically overestimate their electorate’s conservatism on a range of issues.Jean-Benoit Pilet, Professeur de Science Politique, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)Lior Sheffer, Assistant professor in political science, Tel Aviv UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2012372023-03-14T12:19:00Z2023-03-14T12:19:00ZPeople with personality disorders are more likely to sign up for psychology studies – here’s why that’s a problem<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514663/original/file-20230310-20-h7b833.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C5982%2C3399&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/women-dealing-mental-heath-issues-showing-1297141894">solarseven/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many psychological studies rely on participants to give up their time to take part in experiments or complete questionnaires. They take part because they get paid or because they are required to as part of their university course. But, beyond this, not much is known about what motivates people to take part in these studies.</p>
<p>Some participants may be looking for help – perhaps seeking a diagnosis for a mental health issue they’re struggling with. A team of researchers in Poland theorised that taking part in a psychological study might be “perceived as a cheap substitute or alternative to acquire some professional help”. To this end, they set out to discover if participants in psychological studies were more likely to have a personality disorder or be experiencing depression or anxiety.</p>
<p>Their results are published in the open-access journal <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281046">PLOS ONE</a>.</p>
<p>“Researchers often take for granted that the way they advertise their studies and who they recruit do not appreciably affect their outcomes,” the study authors write. “In our studies, we have shown that those who have more personality pathologies are more drawn to studies where they can express their trauma and may be simply more likely to volunteer for studies.”</p>
<p>Izabela Kaźmierczak and colleagues at Maria Grzegorzewska University in Warsaw, Poland, conducted several studies, involving 947 participants in total (62% of whom were women), comparing people who had previously taken part in psychology studies with those who had never taken part in such studies.</p>
<p>They found that participants who had previously taken part in studies exhibited symptoms found in those with personality disorders, depression or anxiety. There are many different types of <a href="https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/mental-health/personality-disorder">personality disorder</a> – including <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/borderline-personality-disorder/overview/">borderline personality disorder</a> and <a href="https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/narcissistic-personality-disorder">narcissistic personality disorder</a> – but, in short, a person with a personality disorder thinks, feels, behaves or relates to others differently from those without it. They may, for instance, blame people for things, or behave aggressively and unpredictably. </p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>What this new study has revealed is a potentially worrying issue of self-selection. Since participants in research choose which studies to take part in, the results of the research may be unduly influenced by a large number of participants of a particular type taking part. Study bias is a serious issue.</p>
<p>Like many other scientific disciplines, psychology research is designed and carried out <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2013/05/weird-psychology-social-science-researchers-rely-too-much-on-western-college-students.html">mainly in universities</a>. Unlike many disciplines, though, psychology requires human participation and, as such, students form a handy subject pool from which to draw. This has led many in the field to wonder how research carried out on predominantly 18 to 22-year-old western students can provide findings that are in any way relevant to any population other than 18 to 24-year-old western students. </p>
<p>Research needs to be valid, and if we cannot claim that our findings relate to the wider population (so-called “generalisability”) we have a serious issue. What this new study shows is that our findings may well be influenced by the psychological nature of the very people we are testing. </p>
<p>We cannot, however, control the students who give their time to sit through our procedures. For instance, we cannot provide instructions on recruitment posters that say: “Those with symptoms of personality disorders need not apply.” But we can and must be more careful in how we select our participants. </p>
<p>What we need to do is carry out research with large enough numbers of people, work that can be repeated, that can allow us to be more confident that our findings have relevance off campus. </p>
<h2>Bumpy road</h2>
<p>All sciences have their bumpy roads to travel, and psychology has certainly been travelling on one in recent years. Experiments that were once deemed to be groundbreaking, have <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z">failed to produce the same results</a> when they were repeated by other psychologists. This is known as the “replication crisis” or “reproducibility crisis”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FpCrY7x5nEE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The reproducibility crisis in science explained.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And the shockwaves caused by the scientific treason of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html">Diederik Stapel</a>, a Dutch psychologist who invented his data and even fabricated entire experiments, are still being felt. Psychology’s reputation has certainly taken a battering.</p>
<p>But psychologists are working carefully on developing transparency and techniques we hope will help us regain the faith of the wider scientific community. What this latest paper has shown is that the participants themselves may well be self-selecting – and, as a result, our findings may again be called into question. We may think we are drawing from as general a population as possible to make the results generalisable to the wider population, but that may not be the case. </p>
<p>This finding will set alarm bells ringing in those working to develop the reliability and reputation of psychology. It needs to be taken seriously. </p>
<p>The results tell us more formally something we should have already known. Those of us involved in psychological research involving participants drawn largely from a pool of psychology students need to be very careful in our recruitment strategies. We might, for instance, need to take care to design research that may not be influenced by the personality or mood of the participant, or we may need to assess the participants taking part in our research. For example, the authors of this latest study suggest winnowing out participants who have taken part in previous psychology studies. </p>
<p>Most importantly, we need to be very careful in the grand claims we make after we publish how our “groundbreaking” research relates to the wider population we look to be investigating. Such a claim may not, it seems, stand up to scrutiny.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201237/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Holt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Psychology is in crisis and this new revelation only adds to the problem.Nigel Holt, Professor of Psychology, Aberystwyth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1987682023-02-09T13:35:09Z2023-02-09T13:35:09ZPublic school enrollment dropped by 1.2M during the pandemic – an expert discusses where the students went and why it matters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508483/original/file-20230206-17-8m0130.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4025%2C2679&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some parents decided to continue home-schooling their kids even after public schools resumed in-person classes.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/VirusOutbreakSchools/645e25ea11a34a59983949f05e8fbe0a/photo">AP Photo/Sarah Blake Morgan</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Student learning took a big hit during the COVID-19 pandemic. Just how much is only becoming clear nearly three years after the World Health Organization declared the pandemic and nearly all U.S. public schools pivoted to online instruction for at least several months in March 2020.</p>
<p>However, the data guiding the nation’s efforts to help kids catch up does not generally include the students who experienced the most dramatic learning disruptions.</p>
<p>Nationwide testing results released in the fall of 2022 revealed that the <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2022/">reading</a> and <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/mathematics/2022/">math</a> performance on standardized tests of students who were in fourth and eighth grades in the U.S. in the 2021-2022 school year declined by <a href="https://ies.ed.gov/director/remarks/11-2-2022.asp">historic amounts</a>.</p>
<p>This dramatic evidence of learning loss has <a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/media-advisories/us-department-education-hold-first-several-sessions-strategies-and-programs-boost-academic-recovery-impact-pandemic">mobilized federal, state and local education leaders</a>. The federal government has allocated US$122 billion to support state and local efforts to help students “<a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-hosts-raising-bar-literacy-math-series-address-academic-recovery">catch up in the classroom</a>.”</p>
<p>Public school districts are using these resources to fund <a href="https://www.k12dive.com/news/report-40-of-districts-plan-to-spend-esser-funds-on-tutoring/621740/">tutoring</a> and <a href="https://www.edweek.org/leadership/how-are-schools-spending-esser-funds-4-takeaways-from-a-new-report/2022/05">extended learning time</a>. And <a href="https://caldercenter.org/publications/challenges-implementing-academic-covid-recovery-interventions-evidence-road-recovery">researchers are assessing</a> the effects of these investments on standardized test scores.</p>
<p>However, these efforts do little to identify or target support to the children whose learning environments were most disrupted by the pandemic. This is especially so for the youngest students, who aren’t yet old enough for most standardized testing.</p>
<h2>Enrollment decline and the ‘streetlight effect’</h2>
<p>During the pandemic, public school enrollment in grades K through 12 fell by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/public-schools-falling-enrollment.html">1.2 million</a> students. These declines were concentrated among <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/07/us/covid-kindergarten-enrollment.html">kindergarten students</a> and in schools that <a href="https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221140029">offered only remote instruction</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly dramatic enrollment losses among even younger learners <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/04/26/1094781782/preschool-enrollment-pandemic">erased a decade of progress</a> in boosting preschool education enrollment.</p>
<p>These declines indicate that the pandemic caused students to miss instructional time or undertake disruptive school switches, often in their developmentally critical early years.</p>
<p>However, <a href="https://network.asbointl.org/viewdocument/asbo-international-survey-report-h-1">school officials</a> list early-childhood programs among the least popular use of available federal funds and provide no indication of targeted academic-recovery efforts for younger or truant students.</p>
<p>This is an example of what scholars call the “<a href="https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-scientific-studies-are-so-often-wrong-the-streetlight-effect">streetlight effect</a>,” in which people focus their attention on easily visible evidence – such as the test scores available for older, currently enrolled students – rather than other relevant data that are more obscured and harder to identify.</p>
<p>And long lags in national data reporting mean little is yet known about the learning environments of the disproportionately young children whose families avoided public schools during the pandemic. Currently, official federal statistics do not even provide basic data on <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_205.10.asp?current=yes">private school</a> or <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_206.10.asp?current=yes">home-school</a> enrollment beyond 2019.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508506/original/file-20230206-17-bdqtil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A child sits at a desk marking a paper with a pencil." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508506/original/file-20230206-17-bdqtil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508506/original/file-20230206-17-bdqtil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508506/original/file-20230206-17-bdqtil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508506/original/file-20230206-17-bdqtil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508506/original/file-20230206-17-bdqtil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508506/original/file-20230206-17-bdqtil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508506/original/file-20230206-17-bdqtil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In most schools, standardized tests don’t start until well beyond kindergarten.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/exam-time-royalty-free-image/679376636">FatCamera/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Where the kids went</h2>
<p>My <a href="https://www.urban.org/research/publication/where-kids-went-nonpublic-schooling-and-demographic-change-during-pandemic">research</a>, done collaboratively with <a href="https://apnews.com/article/enrollment-missing-kids-homeschooling">The Associated Press</a> and data journalists at Stanford University’s <a href="https://biglocalnews.org/">Big Local News</a>, addresses this issue. </p>
<p>For our analysis, we gathered <a href="https://purl.stanford.edu/sb152xr1685">state-level data</a> on public, private and home-school enrollment for the school years from 2019-20 through 2021-22. We also used U.S. Census Bureau estimates to identify the school-age population in each state over this time period. These combined data provide insights into where the students who avoided public schools went and what it means for the nation’s academic-recovery efforts. </p>
<p>Complete data aren’t available in every state, but we have good data on more than half of the school-age population in the U.S. at the onset of the pandemic. These states also experienced public school enrollment declines that are representative of the national trend.</p>
<p>Some students, particularly the youngest, clearly turned to private schools during the pandemic. In the 34 jurisdictions with available data, private school enrollment grew by over 140,000 students between the 2019-20 and 2021-22 school years. However, this increase only explains a modest amount – roughly 14% – of the corresponding decline in public school enrollment.</p>
<p>A more surprising finding is the robust growth of home-schooling during this period. An <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/03/homeschooling-on-the-rise-during-covid-19-pandemic.html">early Census Bureau survey</a> reported that home-schooling increased soon after the pandemic began. Our data show this initial increase endured into the 2021-22 school year when most public schools returned to in-person instruction.</p>
<p>In the 22 jurisdictions with data, home-school enrollment increased by over 184,000 students between the 2019-20 and 2021-22 school years – a 30% increase. For every additional student enrolled in private school over this period, nearly two entered home-schooling. This sustained growth in home-schooling explains 26% of the corresponding losses in public school enrollment.</p>
<p>Roughly a quarter of the public school enrollment loss simply reflects the pandemic decline in the number of school-age children in the U.S. However, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-states-migration-lockdowns-census-11640733268">people moving to new homes during the pandemic</a> means this demographic impact varied considerably by state. In states like California and New York, which saw their overall <a href="https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2021-population-estimates.html">populations fall dramatically</a>, the percentage declines in public school enrollment were at least six times those in states like Texas and Florida, where populations grew.</p>
<h2>New questions for academic recovery</h2>
<p>These findings raise several new questions about what help American students will need to get their education back on track. For instance, researchers know little about the learning opportunities available to children who switched to home-schooling, or the effects of this choice on families.</p>
<p>Our data is also unable to locate more than one-third of the students who left public schools. That could mean that some children are not going to school at all – or that even more families started home-schooling but did so without notifying their state.</p>
<p>A third possibility is that the pandemic led more families to have their kids skip kindergarten. Our data indirectly supports this conjecture. The unexplained declines in public school enrollment are concentrated in <a href="https://reports.ecs.org/comparisons/state-k-3-policies-06">states that do not require kindergarten attendance</a>, like California and Colorado.</p>
<p>What we do know is the pandemic’s learning disruptions occurred disproportionately among the nation’s youngest learners. </p>
<p>Our work to understand and respond to this situation is just beginning. One possible response is to refocus some federal funding on the broad use of early screening tools to reliably identify – and address – learning setbacks years before students are old enough to take the current battery of standardized tests, which often begins in the third grade. Policymakers can also do more to locate students who are missing and to understand the educational needs of those outside the light of conventional data systems.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198768/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Dee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Federal, state and local efforts to help students recover learning they missed or lost during the pandemic are underway. But those projects don’t include the youngest students.Thomas Dee, Barnett Family Professor, Stanford UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1913432022-10-09T19:10:31Z2022-10-09T19:10:31ZNew ‘ethics guidance’ for top science journals aims to root out harmful research – but can it succeed?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/487469/original/file-20220930-24-hj7oj4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C31%2C4191%2C2599&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/RlOAwXt2fEA">Julia Koblitz / Unsplash</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The British journal Nature was founded in 1869 and is one of the world’s most influential and prestigious outlets for scientific research. Its publisher, Nature Portfolio (a subsidiary of the academic publishing giant Springer Nature), also publishes <a href="https://www.nature.com/siteindex">dozens of specialised journals</a> under the Nature banner, covering almost every branch of science.</p>
<p>In August, the company published <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ethics-and-biosecurity">new ethics guidance</a> for researchers. The new guidance is <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03035-6">part</a> of Nature’s “attempt to acknowledge and learn from our troubled deep and recent past, understand the roots of injustice and work to address them as we aim to make the scientific enterprise open and welcoming to all”.</p>
<p>An accompanying <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2">editorial</a> argues the ethical responsibility of researchers should include people and groups “who do not participate in research but may be harmed by its publication”. </p>
<p>It also notes that for some research, “potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication”, and licenses editors to make such determinations. Editors may modify, amend or “correct” articles post-publication. They may also decline to publish, or retract, objectionable content or articles, such as “[s]exist, misogynistic and/or anti-LGBTQ+ content”.</p>
<p>The guidance is correct to say academic freedom, like other freedoms, is not absolute. It’s also legitimate to suggest science can indirectly harm social groups, and their rights may sometimes trump academic freedom. Despite this, some aspects of the new guidance are concerning.</p>
<h2>When science goes wrong</h2>
<p>There’s no doubt science can cause harm, both for its subjects and other groups. Consider an example from the late 19th century. </p>
<p>Harvard professor Edward Clarke proposed that taking part in higher education would cause fertility problems in women, because energy would be diverted from the reproductive system to the brain. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/487432/original/file-20220930-18-y7spf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/487432/original/file-20220930-18-y7spf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/487432/original/file-20220930-18-y7spf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/487432/original/file-20220930-18-y7spf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/487432/original/file-20220930-18-y7spf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1303&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/487432/original/file-20220930-18-y7spf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1303&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/487432/original/file-20220930-18-y7spf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1303&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Edward Clarke’s Sex in Education; or, a Fair Chance for Girls, argued that girls were physically unsuited to education.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hammond_Clarke#/media/File:Sex_in_Education_-_or_a_Fair_Chance_for_the_Girl.jpg">Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Clarke’s account, set out in a bestselling book, has been credited with deepening public opposition to universities opening their doors to women. </p>
<p>At first glance, this seems like exactly the kind of objectionable content that Nature’s new guidance says it would seek to amend or retract. </p>
<p>But the problem with Clarke’s account was not the offensive conclusions it drew about women’s capacity for intellectual development, or the discriminatory policies to which it gave support. </p>
<p>After all, suppose he had been right? If attending university really would harm women’s reproductive health, surely they would want to know.</p>
<p>The real problem with Clarke’s work was that it was bad science. Indeed, historian of science Naomi Oreskes <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=zRMCEAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA79&ots=6oFcOphIWy&dq=Feminists%20in%20the%20late%20nineteenth%20century%20found%20Clarke%E2%80%99s%20agenda%20transparent%20and%20his%20non-empirical%20methodology%20ripe%20for%20attack.&pg=PA79#v=onepage&q=Feminists%20in%20the%20late%20nineteenth%20century%20found%20Clarke%E2%80%99s%20agenda%20transparent%20and%20his%20non-empirical%20methodology%20ripe%20for%20attack.&f=false">has noted</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Feminists in the late nineteenth century found Clarke’s agenda transparent and his non-empirical methodology ripe for attack.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So drawing a particular kind of conclusion about women and girls isn’t what makes for sexist content in science. Nor is it favouring one side or another on gender-related policies. So what is it?</p>
<p>One answer is that it is science in which gendered assumptions bias scientists’ decisions. In the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40985708">words</a> of historian and philosopher of science Sarah Richardson, this is science in which: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>gendered practices or assumptions in a scientific field prevented researchers from accurately interpreting data, caused inferential leaps, blocked the consideration of alternative hypotheses, overdetermined theory choice, or biased descriptive language.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Language and labels</h2>
<p>The guidance also stipulates scientists should “use inclusive, respectful, non-stigmatizing language”. This merits pause for thought. </p>
<p>Scientists should certainly be thoughtful about language, and avoid causing unnecessary offence, hurt or stigma. However, the language must also be scientifically useful and meaningful.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-at-risk-if-scientists-dont-think-strategically-before-talking-politics-63797">What's at risk if scientists don't think strategically before talking politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For example, it is the nature of categories that some entities or individuals are excluded from them. This should be based on scientific criteria, not political ones. </p>
<p>Or consider the following, offered as part of working definitions in the guidance: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is a broad range of gender identities including, but not limited to, transgender, gender-queer, gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, genderless, agender, nongender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and cisgender.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>People should of course be able to identify with whatever gender label they prefer. However, “gender identity” is a vague and contested concept, and these labels (and their meanings) are subjectively defined and continue to change rapidly over time. </p>
<p>Labels that are personally meaningful, deeply felt or – as in some cases – part of a political project to dismantle gender binaries, may not necessarily be scientifically useful. </p>
<h2>An invitation to politicking</h2>
<p>By casting a wide range of content as potentially subject to editorial intervention or veto on the grounds of harm, the guidance opens the door to the politicisation of science. Other material caught in that net is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>content that undermines – or could reasonably be perceived to undermine – the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But scientists often do research providing information used to make policies, which will include the bestowing of various rights. The findings of such research can therefore sometimes be unpalatable to groups with economic, political, religious, emotional or other vested interests. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-a-scientific-message-across-means-taking-human-nature-into-account-70634">Getting a scientific message across means taking human nature into account</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The guidance opens the door for such groups to try to have findings contrary to those interests “corrected” or retracted. There is not much that can’t be framed as a right, a harm, or an infringement of dignity – all notoriously difficult concepts to define and reach consensus on.</p>
<p>What will determine who is successful in their attempt to have articles amended or retracted? Potential harms will be assessed by journal editors and reviewers – and they will perceive these through the lens of their own prior assumptions, ideologies and value systems. </p>
<p>Editors may also face pressure to avoid tarnishing their journal brand, either in response to, or in anticipation of, social media mobs. After all, Springer Nature ultimately answers to its shareholders.</p>
<h2>The responsibility of editors</h2>
<p>As we know from the work of feminist and other critical scholars, scientific claims based on biased research have harmed marginalised groups in many ways: by explaining away group inequalities in status, power and resources; pathologising; stigmatising; and justifying denial of rights.</p>
<p>There is no contradiction between acknowledging these harms, and also having concerns about the new Nature guidance. </p>
<p>Science journals have an important role to play in facilitating socially responsible science in these sensitive areas.</p>
<p>Journal editors should certainly do all they can to discover and scrutinise hidden biases embedded in research, such as by commissioning reviews from experts with different or critical perspectives. However, they should not second-guess what scientific claims will cause social harm, then exercise a veto.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191343/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cordelia Fine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Nature’s recent efforts to redefine the ethical responsibilities of scientists leave a lot to be desired.Cordelia Fine, Professor, History & Philosophy of Science program, School of Historical & Philosophical Studies, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1799872022-05-05T20:05:00Z2022-05-05T20:05:00ZArchitect Christopher Alexander mined mathematics to find patterns for good living<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461355/original/file-20220504-16-8af3ef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C13%2C1519%2C916&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Julian Sreet Inn, Shelter for the Homeless, in San Jose, Calif., designed by Christopher Alexander. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/">(David Ing/Flickr)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Architect and mathematician Christopher Alexander died at age 85 on March 17. </p>
<p>“The end of an era,” one of my colleagues remarked. She was perhaps referring to Alexander’s <a href="https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/15586-tribute-christopher-alexander-1936-2022">influential trajectory</a> of over 30 years at the University of California, Berkeley.</p>
<p>Obituaries about Alexander portrayed him as a fierce critic of modern architecture and chronicled his quest for buildings and cities that displayed qualities of <a href="https://www.ribaj.com/culture/christopher-alexander-obituary-1936-2022">warmth</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/mar/29/christopher-alexander-obituary">aliveness</a>.</p>
<p>Alongside the production of numerous papers, books and buildings, Alexander’s quest was marked by <a href="https://applied.math.utsa.edu/%7Eyxk833/Charles.html">acclaim from royalty</a>, <a href="http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm">architectural disputes</a> and being hailed as a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/arts/christopher-alexander-dead.html">countercultural hero</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429264306-4/bewildered-form-maker-stands-alone-theodora-vardouli">My research</a> has explored how Alexander used mathematics to help designers tackle unwieldy design requirements.</p>
<h2>‘A Pattern Language’</h2>
<p>Alexander’s countercultural reputation mainly stemmed from <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-pattern-language-9780195019193"><em>A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction</em></a>, which he co-authored with researchers from the <a href="https://www.patternlanguage.com/aims/intro-2.html">Center for Environmental Structure</a>, a non-profit corporation he co-founded at Berkeley in 1967.</p>
<p><em>A Pattern Language</em> featured photos, descriptions and diagrams of 253 patterns that Alexander explored as units for the design of buildings and cities. Patterns were linked to each other. The book covered patterns related to things like the distribution of towns (pattern 2), staircases (pattern 133) and chair types (pattern 251). </p>
<p>Each pattern came with detailed commentary on the principles that drove it, and the ways it would enable <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-01-29-tm-25890-story.html">wholeness</a> and relationships between “<a href="http://caper.ws/patterns/apl8/apl8.htm">the great variety of human groups and subcultures which can co-exist</a>” in cities.</p>
<p>Underlying the accessible way Alexander presented the patterns was <a href="https://www.patternlanguage.com/bookstore/timeless-way-of-building.html">a rigorous mathematical logic</a> that defined their sequence and relationships. The dual nature of the book rendered it popular among <a href="https://www.patternlanguage.com/gallery/housingcommunity.html">amateur designers</a> and <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/architectural-intelligence">software engineers</a> alike. </p>
<p>The book also incited <a href="http://www.girlwonder.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Volume-57_Bye-Default_Molly-Steenson.pdf">critique by architects</a> who were skeptical of its claims to universality and comprehensiveness. </p>
<p>The anti-establishment American magazine <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-complicated-legacy-of-stewart-brands-whole-earth-catalog"><em>Whole Earth Catalog</em></a> <a href="https://nevalalee.wordpress.com/tag/the-next-whole-earth-catalog/">dedicated a full page to the book</a> as a tool for DIY design and building. The book even continues to inspire <a href="http://www.patternlanguage.com/">design today</a>.</p>
<h2>‘A City is Not a Tree’</h2>
<p>An important juncture in Alexander’s theoretical explorations toward <em>A Pattern Language</em> was his musing about how a city could emulate the structure of living things and beautiful works of art. He did this in his article “<a href="https://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/cityisnotatree.html">A City is Not a Tree</a>.” </p>
<p>A tree, here, is <a href="https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tree.html">a mathematical term</a> referring to a hierarchical ordering of elements. Alexander critiqued thinking about urban systems in terms of independent parts. He proposed that instead, these parts should be more interconnected.</p>
<p>“A City is Not a Tree” was a critique of his earlier book, <a href="https://monoskop.org/images/f/ff/Alexander_Christopher_Notes_on_the_Synthesis_of_Form.pdf"><em>Notes on the Synthesis of Form</em></a>. Here, Alexander had proposed breaking down complex design problems into hierarchical trees. </p>
<p>Published in 1964, the <em>Notes</em> presented a mathematical method for breaking complex design problems into smaller ones. The book also pioneered computation in architecture and kindled worldwide efforts to bring <a href="https://monoskop.org/images/6/66/Cross_Nigel_1993_A_History_of_Design_Methodology.pdf">scientific rigour to design</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VZHb9-Y9r_E?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Christopher Alexander recorded at the University of Oregon in 1993.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Hidden mathematical structure</h2>
<p>Throughout his career, Alexander spoke of a hidden mathematical structure underlying empirical particulars. </p>
<p>Alexander was trained as a mathematician at Cambridge University. There, he was exposed to “modern” mathematics <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/ebook/9781400829040/platos-ghost">that focused not on measurements or geometric shapes, but on abstract structures</a>. </p>
<p>It would seem that Alexander imported such ideals of abstraction through structures to architecture. But Alexander’s PhD progress reports in the archive of architect <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20060516122752/http://www.artic.edu/aic/libraries/caohp/chermayeff.html">Serge Chermayeff</a>, who was a member of his doctoral committee, suggest that work on the <em>Notes</em> began with <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429264306-4/bewildered-form-maker-stands-alone-theodora-vardouli">practical concerns with how to design mass-industrialized housing</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/691132">Inspired by the flourishing field of game theory</a>, Alexander first imagined a design process as a co-operative game between architects and the public. </p>
<p>The aim was to find a middle ground between architects following public taste and architects imposing theirs. The game’s foundation would be extensive data collection about public needs and preferences, as well as architects’ own preferences and ideals. But under what categories to classify all that data? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="View of a home's hallway, showing wood walls and a built-in bench under a large window facing onto trees." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461371/original/file-20220504-15-odhl9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461371/original/file-20220504-15-odhl9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461371/original/file-20220504-15-odhl9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461371/original/file-20220504-15-odhl9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461371/original/file-20220504-15-odhl9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461371/original/file-20220504-15-odhl9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461371/original/file-20220504-15-odhl9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The front hall of a home designed by Alexander, Sala House, in Albany, N.Y.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">(Ekyono/Wikimedia Commons)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is a house made of?</h2>
<p>In 1959, Alexander advanced this question through a project called “The Urban House,” with Chermayeff at the <a href="https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/about/history">MIT-Harvard Joint Center for Urban Studies</a>. They asked: What is a house made of? Alexander’s answer was that it depends on the data: The data one gathers about a specific design problem ought to dictate the categories for thinking about it and for designing it. </p>
<p>Instead of thinking about a house in terms of conventional categories such as kitchens, bedrooms, windows and doors, analyzing data about people’s and architects’ behaviours, needs or preferences would define an altogether different set of categories. </p>
<p>Alexander suggested thinking of the house in terms of its failures: how its physical attributes caused it to fail meeting specific needs or requirements identified during data collection. Each failure was associated with data. </p>
<p>Examining relationships between the data would help hierarchically organize these failures and indicate the order in which architects should tackle them. Alexander also co-developed a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Gu1zq4vwg">computer program</a> implementing that method. </p>
<h2>Messy data and clean algorithms</h2>
<p><a href="https://vimeo.com/340546754">In several stages of his work</a> Alexander grappled with the relationship between concrete details stemming from observation and abstract mathematical structures that he argued held everything together. As I continue to explore in my research, mathematical structures in Alexander’s work gradually took lives of their own and became severed from the data that gave rise to them in the first place.</p>
<p>Alexander’s work will no doubt continue to be important and relevant in light of burgeoning contemporary debates about <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/all-data-are-local">how data always comes from specific settings</a> and <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/your-computer-fire">algorithmic bias</a>. </p>
<p>The story of how the tree came about and evolved in Alexander’s work shows that behind algorithms lie messy and subjective processes of <a href="https://annenberg.usc.edu/news/critical-conversations/kate-crawford-maps-world-extraction-and-exploitation-atlas-ai">extracting information</a> — and that mathematical abstraction sometimes works to conceal them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/179987/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Theodora Vardouli receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>Architect Christopher Alexander’s work will continue to be important not only for designing buildings but also in light of contemporary debates about how data always comes from specific settings.Theodora Vardouli, Assistant Professor, Peter Guo-hua Fu School of Architecture, McGill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1718372021-11-23T14:16:49Z2021-11-23T14:16:49ZDefining what’s ethical in artificial intelligence needs input from Africans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431918/original/file-20211115-25-jk2xnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">"Alfie", a moral choice machine, is pictured in front of an important question during a press conference in Germany.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Arne Dedert/picture alliance via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) was once the stuff of science fiction. But it’s becoming widespread. It is used in <a href="https://www.lifewire.com/mobile-technology-ai-in-phones-4584792">mobile phone technology</a> and <a href="https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/artificial-intelligence-automotive-industry">motor vehicles</a>. It powers tools for <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/07/05/how-ai-is-transforming-agriculture/?sh=3e1838924ad1">agriculture</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/africas-health-systems-should-use-ai-technology-in-their-fight-against-covid-19-135862">healthcare</a>.</p>
<p>But concerns have emerged about the accountability of AI and related technologies like machine learning. In December 2020 a computer scientist, Timnit Gebru, <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/google-timnit-gebru-ai-what-really-happened/">was fired</a> from Google’s Ethical AI team. She had previously raised the alarm about the social effects of bias in AI technologies. For instance, in a <a href="http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html">2018 paper</a> Gebru and another researcher, Joy Buolamwini, had showed how facial recognition software was less accurate in identifying women and people of colour than white men. Biases in training data can have far-reaching and unintended effects.</p>
<p>There is already a substantial body of research about ethics in AI. This highlights the importance of principles to ensure technologies do not simply worsen biases or even introduce new social harms. As the <a href="https://en.unesco.org/artificial-intelligence/ethics#drafttext">UNESCO draft recommendation on the ethics of AI</a> states: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We need international and national policies and regulatory frameworks to ensure that these emerging technologies benefit humanity as a whole. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In recent years, many <a href="https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/">frameworks</a> and <a href="https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/documents/other/ead1e.pdf">guidelines</a> have been created that identify objectives and priorities for ethical AI.</p>
<p>This is certainly a step in the right direction. But it’s also critical to <a href="https://www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(21)00015-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2666389921000155%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">look beyond</a> technical solutions when addressing issues of bias or inclusivity. Biases can enter at the level of who frames the objectives and balances the priorities. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-020-09534-2">recent paper</a>, we argue that inclusivity and diversity also need to be at the level of identifying values and defining frameworks of what counts as ethical AI in the first place. This is especially pertinent when considering the growth of AI research and machine learning across the African continent.</p>
<h2>Context</h2>
<p>Research and development of AI and machine learning technologies is growing in African countries. Programmes such as <a href="http://www.datascienceafrica.org/">Data Science Africa</a>, <a href="https://www.datasciencenigeria.org/">Data Science Nigeria</a>, and the <a href="https://deeplearningindaba.com/">Deep Learning Indaba</a> with its <a href="https://deeplearningindaba.com/2021/indabax/">satellite IndabaX events</a>, which have so far been held in 27 different African countries, illustrate the interest and human investment in the fields. </p>
<p>The potential of AI and related technologies to promote opportunities for <a href="https://info.microsoft.com/ME-DIGTRNS-WBNR-FY19-11Nov-02-AIinAfrica-MGC0003244_01Registration-ForminBody.html">growth, development and democratisation in Africa</a> is a key driver of this research. </p>
<p>Yet very few African voices have so far been involved in the international ethical frameworks that aim to guide the research. This might not be a problem if the principles and values in those frameworks have universal application. But it’s not clear that they do.</p>
<p>For instance, the <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5">European AI4People framework</a> offers a synthesis of six other ethical frameworks. It identifies respect for autonomy as one of its key principles. This principle has been <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dewb.12145">criticised</a> within the applied ethical field of bioethics. It is seen as <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02580136.2016.1223983">failing to do justice to the communitarian values</a> common across Africa. These focus less on the individual and more on community, even <a href="https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-8-10">requiring that exceptions</a> are made to upholding such a principle to allow for effective interventions.</p>
<p>Challenges like these – or even acknowledgement that there could be such challenges – are largely absent from the discussions and frameworks for ethical AI. </p>
<p>Just like training data can entrench existing inequalities and injustices, so can failing to recognise the possibility of diverse sets of values that can vary across social, cultural and political contexts.</p>
<h2>Unusable results</h2>
<p>In addition, failing to take into account social, cultural and political contexts can mean that even a seemingly perfect <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3287560.3287598">ethical technical solution can be ineffective or misguided once implemented</a>. </p>
<p>For machine learning to be effective at making useful predictions, any learning system needs access to training data. This involves samples of the data of interest: inputs in the form of multiple features or measurements, and outputs which are the labels scientists want to predict. In most cases, both these features and labels require human knowledge of the problem. But a failure to correctly account for the local context could result in underperforming systems.</p>
<p>For example, mobile phone call records have <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/8/5/165">been used</a> to estimate population sizes before and after disasters. However, vulnerable populations are less likely to have access to mobile devices. So, this kind of approach <a href="https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/10.1093/wber/lhz039">could yield results that aren’t useful</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly, computer vision technologies for identifying different kinds of structures in an area will likely underperform where different construction materials are used. In both of these cases, as we and other colleagues discuss in <a href="https://www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(21)00225-7?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2666389921002257%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">another recent paper</a>, not accounting for regional differences may have profound effects on anything from the delivery of disaster aid, to the performance of autonomous systems.</p>
<h2>Going forward</h2>
<p>AI technologies must not simply worsen or incorporate the problematic aspects of current human societies. </p>
<p>Being sensitive to and inclusive of different contexts is vital for designing effective technical solutions. It is equally important not to assume that values are universal. Those developing AI need to start including people of different backgrounds: not just in the technical aspects of designing data sets and the like but also in defining the values that can be called upon to frame and set objectives and priorities.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171837/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Inclusivity and diversity also need to be at the level of identifying values and defining frameworks of what counts as ethical AI in the first place.Mary Carman, Lecturer in Philosophy, University of the WitwatersrandBenjamin Rosman, Associate Professor in the School of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1616142021-06-15T14:54:35Z2021-06-15T14:54:35ZReuters’ Hot List of climate scientists is geographically skewed: why this matters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405887/original/file-20210611-21-xim81j.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A section of Quarry Road informal settlement in Durban after severe flooding in April 2019 where research was undertaken by local scientists.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Catherine Sutherland</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/">Hot List</a> of “the world’s top climate scientists” is causing a buzz in the climate change community. Reuters ranked these 1,000 scientists based on three criteria: the number of papers published on climate change topics; citations, relative to other papers in the same field; and references by the non-peer reviewed press (for example on social media). The list does not claim that they are the “best” scientists in the world. But the ranking enhances position and reputation, influencing the production, reproduction and dissemination of knowledge.</p>
<p>What matters to us, as global South researchers and practitioners working in the field of climate change, is that the geography of this “global” list reveals a striking imbalance. While over three quarters of the <a href="https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/">global population</a> live in Asia and Africa, over three quarters of the scientists on the list are located in Europe and North America. Only five are listed for Africa.</p>
<p>The list includes 130 of the 929 authors who are contributing to the current reports of the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>, arguably the most influential source for climate change policy. Again, the imbalance is stark: 377 (41%) of panel authors are citizens of developing countries (95 from Africa) and only 16 of these are on the Reuters list (only two from Africa).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/403372/original/file-20210528-23-eyqb8n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A map showing uneven distribution of scientists." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/403372/original/file-20210528-23-eyqb8n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/403372/original/file-20210528-23-eyqb8n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403372/original/file-20210528-23-eyqb8n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403372/original/file-20210528-23-eyqb8n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403372/original/file-20210528-23-eyqb8n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403372/original/file-20210528-23-eyqb8n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403372/original/file-20210528-23-eyqb8n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Proportion of Hot List authors, IPCC authors and global population by continent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marlies Craig</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Climate change science dominated by knowledge produced in the global North cannot address the particular challenges faced by those living in the global South. It also misses significant lessons emerging from the global South, for example from the intersection of climate change with poverty, inequality and informality. </p>
<p>Reuters maps the 1,000 scientists, making it clear that their location is important, yet it does not reflect on what this portrays. While the list is presented as a neutral, data-driven assessment of the top climate scientists, it is silent on the questions of power, authority and inequality this map raises. Where are the global South scientists, and why are they not featuring in this analysis of influence?</p>
<p>We believe that this inequality in influence is a result of unequal access to knowledge production essentials and processes. It also reflects the unequal valuing of climate change scientists’ research focus, which for scientists in the global South is often context-specific, to improve human outcomes and achieve localised return on investment in knowledge.</p>
<p>The list elevates research that contributes to well-established bodies of knowledge on the processes of climate change, and its global and local impacts, much of which has been produced <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-south-scholars-are-missing-from-european-and-us-journals-what-can-be-done-about-it-99570">in the global North</a>. Research questions developed in and framed by the global North, for instance questions about environmental perceptions and values, often have limited application or meaning in the global South.</p>
<h2>Science from global South matters</h2>
<p>The science that is elevated by the list is not the only science that matters. Research from the global South tends to focus on solving challenges on the ground, drawing on multiple voices in local spaces and including practitioner knowledge, to co-produce solutions. </p>
<p>From our experience in Durban on South Africa’s east coast, local researchers, drawing on contextualised and decolonised global knowledge, influence the position of local policy makers and practitioners on climate change solutions. An example is research undertaken in informal settlements by university researchers with communities, which is shaping Durban’s <a href="https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-352">climate change action</a>.</p>
<p>To achieve a better global balance of important work on climate change, a list like the Reuters one could include a measure of the localised application and influence of research. What also matters is that the exclusion of ideas inhibits the production of knowledge for globally relevant innovation, transformation and action. Northern literature dominates global thinking and practice as shown through the spatiality of the list, but this science does not always provide globally relevant solutions, and often has limited application or meaning <a href="https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200806084122205">in the global South</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/global-south-scholars-are-missing-from-european-and-us-journals-what-can-be-done-about-it-99570">Global South scholars are missing from European and US journals. What can be done about it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Addressing the global problem of climate change requires an engagement with the theories, knowledge and experiences from all parts of the world. Science from <a href="https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-352">the global South</a> may well provide innovative climate change solutions, but very little of this science makes it into the global conversation. The imbalance in influence, therefore, has implications for both global and local action.</p>
<h2>Global South vulnerable to worst impacts of climate change</h2>
<p>The global South is faced with the most severe consequences of climate change. Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and small island developing states are identified as key vulnerability hotpots. Sub-Saharan Africa already has a large share of the population living in multidimensional poverty. Across the continent there is a high dependence on agriculture which is predominantly rain-fed. Changing rainfall patterns and low irrigation rates are compromising these livelihoods. Rapidly growing coastal population centres are increasingly exposed and <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025835">vulnerable to rising sea levels</a>.</p>
<h2>Global literature should support global fight against climate change</h2>
<p>Much of the global literature is blind to and silent on the lived experiences of the majority of the globe. This includes extreme and multidimensional poverty, inequality, informality, gender inequity, cultural and language diversity, rapid urbanisation and weak governance, and how these intersect with climate change. An incomplete literature will miss important solutions in the global fight against climate change. </p>
<p>The most compelling story in the Hot List publication is the unequal global distribution of knowledge and expertise. But this is not acknowledged, debated or highlighted as a cause for grave concern. It may not be the responsibility of an international news agency like <a href="https://www.reutersagency.com/en/about/about-us/">Reuters</a> to solve this issue, but an agency that claims to provide “trusted intelligence” and “freedom from bias” should at least point it out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161614/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Sutherland receives funding from National Research Foundation South Africa, Water Research Commission, Wellcome Trust, EU</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Slotow receives funding from Wellcome Trust Our Planet Our Health Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems project which is working in resource poor communities in Africa examining the agriculture-environment-food nexus. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Emmanuel Okem, Debra Roberts, Marlies H Craig, Michelle A. North, and Nina Hunter do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Climate change science dominated by knowledge produced in the global North cannot address the particular challenges faced by those living in the global South.Nina Hunter, Post-Doctoral Researcher, University of KwaZulu-NatalAndrew Emmanuel Okem, Science Officer in the Durban office of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II Technical Support Unit, University of KwaZulu-NatalCatherine Sutherland, Associate Professor in Development Studies , University of KwaZulu-NatalDebra Roberts, Head: Sustainable and Resilient City Initiatives Unit, EThekwini Municipality; Honorary Professor, University of KwaZulu Natal and Co-Chair of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, University of KwaZulu-NatalMarlies H Craig, Biologist with a PhD in Epidemiology, University of KwaZulu-NatalMichelle A. North, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of KwaZulu-NatalRob Slotow, Professor, University of KwaZulu-NatalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1493512020-11-12T13:27:19Z2020-11-12T13:27:19ZWhen scientific journals take sides during an election, the public’s trust in science takes a hit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368891/original/file-20201111-13-hvhyb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=447%2C60%2C5157%2C3745&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People lose faith in science when it takes a political side.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2020WisconsinVoting/f700f11017154b8198897294aaa18cba/photo?boardId=d7f2514f50804466b15dfb81ed00d9cd&st=boards&mediaType=audio,photo,video,graphic&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=15&currentItemNo=6">AP Photo/Wong Maye-E</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>When the scientific establishment gets involved in partisan politics, it decreases people’s trust in science, especially among conservatives, according to our recent research.</p>
<p>In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, several prestigious scientific journals took the highly unusual step of either endorsing Joe Biden or criticizing Donald Trump in their pages.</p>
<p>In September, the editor-in-chief of the journal Science wrote a scathing article titled “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe7391">Trump lied about science</a>,” which was followed by other strong critiques from both the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2029812">New England Journal of Medicine</a> and the cancer research journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30548-9">Lancet Oncology</a>.</p>
<p>Several other top publications – including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02852-x">Nature</a> and <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/">Scientific American</a> – soon followed, with overt endorsements of Biden. The statements focused on each candidate’s impact on scientific knowledge and science-based decision-making.</p>
<p>To evaluate whether political endorsements like these might influence people’s attitudes toward science, we ran an <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NuknCbGqhuJyeGYLGuqBCqa9hC0MR13Z/view?usp=sharing">online survey experiment</a>.</p>
<p>We asked one group of respondents to read a news article about a scientific journal or magazine. We asked a second group of people to read an article that contained the same description of the publication but with additional details about the political position it took and quotes from its actual statements regarding Biden and Trump. Then we asked respondents about their trust in scientists, scientific journals and science as an institution.</p>
<p><iframe id="qH79F" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qH79F/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>We found that trust in science declined among respondents who learned about a publication’s partisan statement. The magnitude of the observed effects is small but statistically significant, holds across a range of controls and is persistent across different ways of measuring trust in science. The finding was most pronounced for conservatives, likely because the endorsements were all supportive of Biden and against Trump.</p>
<p>Furthermore, we also found an interesting indirect effect. As trust in science decreased, so did the reported likelihood of complying with scientific recommendations about health behaviors related to COVID-19 – for example, wearing face masks.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>There’s a lot of new research in the area of trust in science, including large polls of the public. Some findings suggest that there is still confidence in scientific expertise – but this <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/">declines as soon as science mixes with policy recommendations in people’s minds</a>.</p>
<p>Public policy issues have become highly polarized, reflecting larger political trends. While scientific research itself has not driven such polarization, some areas of scientific research, such as climate change, have become very politicized.</p>
<p>Further, while <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/27/public-confidence-in-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/">public trust in scientists and science has remained largely stable</a> over the years, the American public is <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/">divided along party lines</a> in terms of trust in, and perceived impartiality of, science. Even more concerning, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/516412-polls-show-trust-in-scientific-political-institutions-eroding">trust in science and medicine has been on the decline</a> since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>Our findings suggest there may be costs when scientific institutions take partisan stances on electoral politics.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="people with signs at a March for Science in DC" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Science supporters – like these at a 2017 March for Science – risk looking like just another advocacy group.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/ScienceMarch/547723549891476ba4b3595c94e3bc10/photo?boardId=d7f2514f50804466b15dfb81ed00d9cd&st=boards&mediaType=audio,photo,video,graphic&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=15&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How we did our work</h2>
<p>Because a single survey – even with a sample as large as our initial group of 2,975 demographically diverse Americans – could be a fluke, we ran a second survey. We configured a new sample of 1,000 people to be representative of the U.S. population, allowing us to generalize our findings better. The results lined up with those from the first study, indicating that our findings were not a fluke but robust. We will submit our full analysis to a peer-reviewed journal soon.</p>
<p>Because of the experimental design of our study, the effects we have identified can’t be due to people’s initial views coming into the survey. That’s because participants were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, no matter what their prior beliefs on science or partisan positions. </p>
<p>As with any experimental study, we don’t know whether these effects will last or not. The highly partisan environment of the 2020 election may make some of our results specific to this time and place.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149351/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin L. Young donated to a PAC during the current election, focusing on voter mobilization.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernhard Leidner receives funding from the National Science Foundation for his current work on COVID-19 and, among other things, trust in science.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stylianos Syropoulos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When the scientific establishment gets involved in partisan politics, surveys suggest, there are unintended consequences – especially for conservatives.Kevin L. Young, Associate Professor of Economics, UMass AmherstBernhard Leidner, Associate Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, UMass AmherstStylianos Syropoulos, PhD Student in Psychological and Brain Sciences, UMass AmherstLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1497342020-11-12T03:32:55Z2020-11-12T03:32:55ZBiden’s pivot to science is welcome — Trump only listened to experts when it suited him<p>In his <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/8/joe-biden-acceptance-speech-full-transcript">acceptance speech</a> at the weekend, US President-Elect Joe Biden signalled a return to science as a key policy shift for the United States. </p>
<p>“Americans have called on us to […] marshal the forces of science and the forces of hope in the great battles of our time,” he said, assuring the public the <a href="https://joebiden.com/covid-plan/">Biden-Harris COVID plan</a> “will be built on the bedrock of science”. </p>
<p>His message, on its surface, is a response to the Trump administration’s disdain for scientific advice, most notably in the COVID response and withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. </p>
<p>But Biden’s remarks are deeper and more interesting than a simple spruik for science-led policy.</p>
<h2>A track record of ignoring evidence</h2>
<p>Is Trump’s administration anti-scientific? Yes and no. </p>
<p>According to a <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/trump-has-shown-little-respect-us-science-so-why-are-some-parts-thriving">report compiled by the journal Science</a>, the Trump White House has indeed pursued an agenda of suppressing science by slashing funding. But this agenda has been largely unsuccessful. </p>
<p>During Trump’s term, funding for the National Institutes for Health rose by 39% and the budget for the National Science Foundation rose by 17%. This is explained, at least in part, by Congress resisting the White House’s efforts to defund science.</p>
<p>Setting aside direct attacks on funding, the Trump administration has also positioned itself as anti-science in other, more visible ways. </p>
<p>It has a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02814-3">track record</a> of ignoring scientific advice on issues ranging from the deadliness of COVID, to the impact of human activity on the climate, to the bizarre “<a href="https://time.com/5775953/trump-dorian-alabama-sharpiegate-noaa/">Sharpiegate</a>” episode in which Trump apparently used a marker pen to alter the forecast track of Hurricane Dorian.</p>
<h2>Cherry picking to suit an agenda</h2>
<p>Yet it would be wrong to paint Trump as unequivocally anti-science. </p>
<p>He <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/trump-administration-investing-1-billion-research-institutes-advance-industries-future/">poured money</a> into quantum computing and artificial intelligence, and invested heavily in space exploration, promising a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/trump-nasa-moon-2024/585880/">return to the Moon</a> this decade. And, at the risk of stretching this argument beyond breaking point, he called on civil engineering to deliver his Mexican border wall. </p>
<p>Trump also used science to win an election. Let’s not forget the pivotal role of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html">Cambridge Analytica</a> in his victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. A mixture of data science and empirical psychology delivered voters to Trump in the millions. </p>
<p>While it is difficult to know exactly what methods Cambridge Analytica used, it is possible that a method known as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03880-4">psychographic targeting</a> was part of their approach. This involves analysing users’ behaviour on social media sites such as Facebook — for example, by tracking the content that individuals “like” — as a basis for delivering targeted advertising that fits a person’s personality.</p>
<p>It is perhaps no accident, then, that quantum computing and artificial intelligence got the thumbs-up. In the world of voter manipulation, it is hard to think of a scientific investment that would yield a better return.</p>
<p>Painting Trump’s administration as entirely anti-intellectual overlooks one of the key factors that delivered him electoral success in the first place. His 2016 victory was in one sense a scientific achievement, delivered by technological algorithms designed to exploit publicly available data with unprecedented effectiveness. </p>
<p>Such a result is absolutely repeatable. As long as methods such as psychographic targeting go unregulated in the political sphere, future candidates could leverage data science in much the way Trump did to win the White House.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/humans-are-hardwired-to-dismiss-facts-that-dont-fit-their-worldview-127168">Humans are hardwired to dismiss facts that don't fit their worldview</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Science in the public interest</h2>
<p>Biden’s approach is not just a pivot back to respecting expertise, but also a pledge to embrace science in the public interest. The <a href="https://joebiden.com/covid-plan/">Biden-Harris COVID plan</a>, for example, will be founded on expert advice but will also, as Biden explained, “be constructed out of compassion, empathy and concern”. </p>
<p>Hopefully this heralds an end to the use of science to achieve narrow and selfish political ends, and a return to the appropriation of science for the common good. </p>
<p>While I applaud the kind of science Biden wants to embrace, I daresay he faces a difficult choice. If he refuses to use science to further any partisan political ends, his party runs the risk of getting rolled in the next election by a demagogue who does not suffer the same burden of decency. </p>
<p>Perhaps he can get ahead of this by asking us all to have a serious conversation, on a global scale, about the use of science in winning elections. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-is-political-scientific-american-has-endorsed-joe-biden-over-trump-for-president-australia-should-take-note-146394">'Science is political': Scientific American has endorsed Joe Biden over Trump for president. Australia should take note</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>At the very least, we should reject the narrative that the Trump administration repudiates science in its entirety. That only makes it harder to see the danger the improper use of science poses to democracy. </p>
<p>We are, it is often said, living in a post-truth world. The Trump administration’s denial of evidence, and its capacity to lie about everything from coronavirus cures to election results, provide several classic examples. After four years of “alternative facts”, Biden’s vocal support for scientific expertise was a breath of fresh air. </p>
<p>But, perhaps unintentionally, Biden has also revealed a dangerous faultline of democracy. By positioning his administration as one that uses science only for the common good, he is tacitly acknowledging democracy’s vulnerability to science and technology. </p>
<p>Biden’s words remind us that technological advances threaten to propel us into a world where political differences become irreconcilable, and respect for democratic norms is not guaranteed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149734/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Baron receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>Hopefully, Joe Biden’s presidency will mark the end of using cherry-picked science to suit a political agenda. As Trump’s successor, however, he’s placed in a difficult position.Sam Baron, Associate professor, Australian Catholic UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/933222018-06-05T10:46:58Z2018-06-05T10:46:58ZWith federal funding for science on the decline, what’s the role of a profit motive in research?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221412/original/file-20180601-142069-1d17td4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=318%2C661%2C4572%2C3163&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Money doesn't grow in flasks – scientists have to find funds outside the lab.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/UmncJq4KPcA">chuttersnap/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What is the place of a profit motive in the production of knowledge at public universities?</p>
<p>The Trump administration’s initial budget request presented in 2017 offered one answer to that question. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the budget proposal included a <a href="https://www.aaas.org/page/fy-2018-rd-appropriations-dashboard">17 percent reduction in funding for basic research</a>. Proposed cuts to particular agencies and programs within them, such as research on <a href="https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.22036.1496251823!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/nature.2017.22036.pdf?origin=ppub">basic energy sciences at the Department of Energy</a>, were particularly acute. And while <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/trump-science-budget/556229/">Congress intervened</a> to avoid these cuts, the current funding package is nevertheless part of a long-term trend of reduced federal commitment to science. </p>
<p><iframe id="Amo48" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Amo48/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Proposed and actual funding conveys a recurring message to American academic scientists: do more to attract money from other sources. In most instances, this means industry funding.</p>
<p>On the face of it, partnerships between academia and industry in the production of knowledge are both sensible and critical. Given sluggish economic growth and the prevalence of societal problems that require technological solutions, one might argue that universities should be extensively engaged in contributing to innovation and less concerned with research lacking an apparent connection to real-world impact. Why spend time and money on studying the mating habits of Japanese quail when there are problems like Alzheimer’s disease and excessive reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels that urgently need solutions right now? </p>
<p>Yet many critics argue that a profit motive in science creates a scenario in which scientists place their values and potential personal gain ahead of the public good, resulting in <a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html">bias and conflicts of interest</a>. Whether you are concerned about the advancement of science, economic innovation, or both, it’s worth considering the value and appropriateness of partnerships between academic scientists and the corporate sector.</p>
<p>What do researchers themselves think? I’ve spent more than a decade sitting down with hundreds of scientists around the world for in-depth conversations about their work. In my recent book, “<a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/fractured-profession">A Fractured Profession: Commercialism and Conflict in Academic Science</a>,” I examine how scientists experience the rise of commercialism in academic science. These researchers shared views with me that don’t necessarily fall neatly in line with either those who celebrate a profit motive in science nor those who lament it.</p>
<h2>What actually motivates scientists?</h2>
<p>Even if university administrators and federal officials reward profitable science, the scientists I spoke with say that profits are rarely their motivation. Commercialist scientists in academia certainly do not dismiss the importance of revenues or resources for research, but societal impact and the pursuit of status in science were more highly prized by the scientists in my study. Being able to claim that you reduced the cost of making a vaccine to less than the cost of the bottle in which it is stored, for example, is a new way to stand out at a university where most scientists are publishing in the top journals in their field. In this respect, self-interest – generating money and prestige – can coincide with the public good.</p>
<p>Perhaps more importantly to those who think that universities should operate even more like businesses <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/academic-capitalism-and-new-economy">than they already do</a>, scholars are finding that average rates of return from commercialization — even at universities with the highest licensing income — <a href="https://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2011/06/rules-for-growth-promoting-innovation-and-growth-through-legal-reform">are relatively low</a>. In the same way that relatively few universities benefit considerably from big-time college sports, relatively few universities — typically those that are rich already — actually produce blockbusters that lead to financial windfalls. </p>
<p>Unlike some commentators and <a href="https://theconversation.com/people-dont-trust-scientific-research-when-companies-are-involved-76848">members of the public</a>, most of the scientists I spoke with are relatively unconcerned with <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780742543713/Science-in-the-Private-Interest-Has-the-Lure-of-Profits-Corrupted-Biomedical-Research-">conflicts of interest and bias</a> in commercially oriented research. In their view, peer review mitigates such questions. Even if a scientist stands to gain financially from the outcomes of her research, if an invention is not scientifically sound, researchers contend it would have little chance of success in the market.</p>
<p>The traditional scientists in academia I spoke with reported <a href="https://theconversation.com/rather-than-being-free-of-values-good-science-is-transparent-about-them-84946">two chief values</a>: support for curiosity-driven research and a long-term vision of the technological fruits of scientific research. Traditionalists are still the majority, but they encounter scarce resources for basic research and increasing pressure to connect their work to concrete societal impacts. In the words of one scientist, much of what scientists understand about cancer stems from work based on Nobel Prize-winning biologist Lee Hartwell’s curiosity-driven research on how yeast cells divide. “If he had to apply his research, he probably would have had to work for Budweiser,” he said.</p>
<h2>Investing in a mix of sorts of science</h2>
<p>What should be the role of the state and the market in the production of knowledge in the American research university? Both are critical.</p>
<p>History shows there’s an intrinsic value to letting people explore, because such <a href="https://theconversation.com/tracing-the-links-between-basic-research-and-real-world-applications-82198">exploration is critical to later marketplace innovations</a> and economic prosperity. Today’s multi-billion-dollar global positioning system industries rely on Einstein’s general theory of relativity and ideas from 19th-century geometry, the latter of which were dismissed by contemporaries as useless. Other technologies, such as Teflon, saccharine and the pacemaker, were accidental creations. While corporations once valued having internal basic science laboratories where exploratory or “blue-sky” research took place, now the U.S government is the chief, and under-resourced, patron for this important work.</p>
<p>Few universities generate vast commercial returns from commercially oriented research. As a society, we must therefore be cautious in how eagerly we unleash the forces of the market in funding science in academia. Similar experiments in substituting the market for the state in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/magazine/michigan-gambled-on-charter-schools-its-children-lost.html">primary schooling</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/private-prisons-escapes-riots.html">prisons</a> and <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/outsourcing-war/">the military</a> have not clearly paid off. </p>
<p>Much as a diversified investment portfolio includes various assets that balance returns and risk, society would benefit most from a healthy mix of investment in curiosity-driven, use-inspired and highly market-oriented research in academia.</p>
<p>Until scientists can better articulate why science is as worthy of investment as any other form of infrastructure, they will likely continue to encounter the message delivered today: look to the market.</p>
<p>
<section class="inline-content">
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248894/original/file-20181204-133095-1p2xxs2.png?w=128&h=128">
<div>
<header>David R. Johnson is the author of:</header>
<p><a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/fractured-profession">A Fractured Profession: Commercialism and Conflict in Academic Science</a></p>
<footer>Johns Hopkins University Press provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.</footer>
</div>
</section>
</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93322/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was funded by the National Science Foundation Grant #0957033 “A New Reward System in Academic Science.”
Johns Hopkins University Press provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.</span></em></p>Money always seems tight for university scientists. A sociologist conducted hundreds of interviews to see how they think about funding sources and profit motives for basic and applied research.David R. Johnson, Assistant Professor of Higher Education, University of Nevada, RenoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/849462017-11-07T03:26:21Z2017-11-07T03:26:21ZRather than being free of values, good science is transparent about them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193459/original/file-20171106-1055-1tmbboh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's good for scientists to work in glass laboratories.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.broadinstitute.org/photos-broad-institute/photos-broad-institute">Len Rubenstein</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scientists these days face a conundrum. As Americans are buffeted by accounts of <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-media/trump-suggests-challenging-tv-network-licenses-over-fake-news-idUSKBN1CG1WB">fake news</a>, <a href="https://www.seeker.com/alternative-facts-have-plagued-science-for-decades-2272707511.html">alternative facts</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/russia-us-politics-social-media-facebook">deceptive social media campaigns</a>, how can researchers and their scientific expertise contribute meaningfully to the conversation?</p>
<p>There is a common perception that science is a matter of hard facts and that it <a href="https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-12-69">can and should remain insulated</a> from the social and political interests that permeate the rest of society. Nevertheless, many historians, philosophers and sociologists who study the practice of science have come to the conclusion that trying to kick values out of science risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. </p>
<p>Ethical and social values – like the desire to promote economic development, public health or environmental protection – often play integral roles in scientific research. By acknowledging this, scientists might seem to give away their authority as a defense against the flood of misleading, inaccurate information that surrounds us. But I argue in my book “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-tapestry-of-values-9780190260811?lang=en&cc=us">A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science</a>” that if scientists take appropriate steps to manage and communicate about their values, they can promote a more realistic view of science as both value-laden and reliable.</p>
<h2>Values can be good or bad</h2>
<p>There is no question, of course, that values can cause problems in science. Powerful organizations like the <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/ebook.php?isbn=9780520950436">tobacco</a> and <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520275829">lead</a> industries have manipulated science to boost their profit margins and prevent regulation of their products. The fossil fuel industry has engaged in similar tactics to <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">spread misinformation about climate change</a>.</p>
<p>And it’s not just big business that spreads misleading science – <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/fake-news-plaguing-world-of-science#1">many different groups</a> peddle questionable claims about everything from vaccines and alternative medicines to genetically modified foods and diet strategies. In these cases, economic values or ideological commitments have inclined people to ignore or suppress evidence that runs counter to their preferences.</p>
<p>But I’d argue that it would be a grave mistake to try to eliminate all value considerations from scientific research. At the very least, most people want scientists to respect human rights and animal welfare when they design potentially harmful experiments.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What research gets funded, from a limited pool of money, is a value-laden decision.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/ha96QM1eH74">Andrew Robles on Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We as citizens also want scientists to keep social priorities in mind when deciding what research projects to undertake. In part, this involves choosing among an array of possible topics – for example, deciding how to divide up medical research investments among cancer, AIDS, diabetes and mental health.</p>
<p>It also involves deciding how scientists study these topics. Should they focus more attention on <a href="https://www.cancer.org/research/we-conduct-cancer-research/epidemiology/cancer-prevention-studies-save-lives.html">preventing environmentally induced cancers</a>? Or treating cancers that are already present? How much money should go toward developing new drugs for treating depression as opposed to studying how to <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/depression-and-exercise/art-20046495">mitigate some cases</a> by modifying diet, exercise or the social environment? Social values are obviously relevant to making these judgments.</p>
<h2>Between hard facts and unfounded advocacy</h2>
<p>A great deal of science is now performed in an effort to inform policymakers who need to make practical decisions about real-world problems such as regulating industrial chemicals or managing wildlife populations or preventing disease outbreaks. This sort of research can be plagued by uncertainties; there’s almost never one clear-cut “right” answer. </p>
<p>In these research contexts, scientists must decide how to extrapolate beyond the available data and weigh complex bodies of evidence in order to <a href="https://www.upress.pitt.edu/BookDetails.aspx?bookId=35967">help policymakers draw conclusions</a>. <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/exploring-inductive-risk-9780190467722?lang=en&cc=us">Values have a role to play</a> in making these decisions. If one errs in one direction, one often risks overregulation and economic losses. Err the other way, and public health and environmental resources are often at stake. It makes sense to think about these consequences when deciding which way to lean.</p>
<p>Even the language employed by scientists is often laden with values. For example, environmental scientists have <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300205817/metaphors-environmental-sustainability">debated the merits</a> of talking about “invasive,” “nonnative,” “exotic” or “alien” species, given that these are metaphorical terms that have great significance in contemporary social and political debates. In biomedical research, scientists have <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564">struggled to decide</a> whether the benefits of employing racial categories outweigh the dangers of promoting misleading notions about race as a biological phenomenon. And the World Health Organization suggested in 2015 that scientists should <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/discovered-disease-who-has-new-rules-avoiding-offensive-names">stop using disease names</a> like swine flu, athlete’s foot or Marburg disease, because they could stigmatize animals, people or places. In cases like these, there may be no strictly value-neutral ways of categorizing and describing phenomena.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Broadening the researcher pool beyond just the types who attended an international scientific meeting in 1879 means people are bringing different sets of values to the lab bench.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:II_International_Meteorological_congress_Rome_1879.jpg">Музей-архив Д. И. Менделеева</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Recognizing values helps science’s integrity</h2>
<p>Even if we cannot turn science into a value-free endeavor, researchers can still take important steps to preserve its legitimacy. One way to do that is for the scientific community to <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408107/">promote as much transparency in science as possible</a> so that the influences of values can be recognized. Depending on the context, this can involve many different activities: consistently publishing results, using open-access journals, making data publicly available, providing data analysis plans before studies begin, making materials and methods available to other researchers and disclosing conflicts of interest.</p>
<p>Both citizens and scientists also need to scrutinize and discuss the influences of values as effectively as possible, using many different venues: Journals can promote <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6348/256?ijkey=aoQ8T2TirYWfM&keytype=ref&siteid=sci">thoughtful peer-review processes</a>, government agencies can maintain effective science advisory boards, scientific societies can create reports on debated topics, <a href="https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/translational/community/index.cfm">citizens can get involved in research projects</a> and the scientific community can encourage new perspectives by <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2015/12/moving-toward-inclusion">promoting greater diversity</a> in its membership. By taking these steps, scientists and stakeholders can decide how best to handle important judgments, and they can distinguish scientific conclusions that are well supported from those that are more tenuous.</p>
<p>By virtue of the fact that science is done by and for human beings, values are entangled in the enterprise whether we acknowledge it or not. Rather than <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186049">dismissing scientists who discuss their values</a>, we ought to encourage scientists and other stakeholders to engage in open, thoughtful reflection about how values influence research. Far from threatening the integrity of science, this is the path to promoting science that is trustworthy and socially responsible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84946/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin Elliott does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Science isn’t cold, hard facts uncovered by emotionless robots. Acknowledging how and where values play a role promotes a more realistic view and can advance science’s reputation for reliability.Kevin Elliott, Associate Professor in Lyman Briggs College, Fisheries & Wildlife, and Philosophy, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/793332017-06-27T20:05:42Z2017-06-27T20:05:42ZHow parenting advice assumes you’re white and middle class<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174658/original/file-20170620-24907-72qjnf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Culturally biased psychology research and the advice based on it ends up in textbooks. But it's not appropriate for everyone.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/344854625?src=YuCLMqUBpTpnKjydZzpbzA-1-26&size=medium_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Whose advice do you trust when it comes to raising children? For many, the answer is to ask health professionals who can draw on years of experience, and who have access to, and can make sense of, research. </p>
<p>But <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096517300346">our new study</a> found the research basis of much of our parenting advice from health professionals is biased.</p>
<p>The advice is based mostly on studies conducted on children growing up in the US, with a large chunk of the rest carried out in other English-speaking countries. All up, these studies mainly represent research conducted in Western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic countries.</p>
<p>This could mean the research, and the parenting advice based on it, might not apply to everyone who receives it.</p>
<h2>What we did and what we found</h2>
<p>We surveyed every study (in over 1,500 papers) appearing in three top-ranking developmental psychology journals from 2006 to 2010.</p>
<p>These journals publish studies about how children make sense of and interact with their world – how children feel, behave and develop psychologically as they grow.</p>
<p>It’s the type of research that becomes entrenched in textbooks and is translated into the knowledge used to advise parents on a wide range of topics. These range from how children acquire language, how they recognise the perspectives of others and develop friendships, through to understanding moral concepts.</p>
<p>More than half of the papers (57.65%) relied on research conducted with children growing up in the US, and another 18% only included children from other English-speaking backgrounds.</p>
<p>Fewer than 3% of study participants contributing to our contemporary knowledge of children’s psychological development came from all of Central and South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Israel combined. These areas contain <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/">roughly 85%</a> of the world’s population. </p>
<p>Though we didn’t report it in the paper, we also collated the participants’ reported socio-economic status. Most (80%) of papers reporting socio-economic detail said their participants came from middle- to high-socio-economic backgrounds. </p>
<h2>Why might this be a problem?</h2>
<p>This might not be a problem if you and your children are from the same background as the research participants. But what if you aren’t? Does it really matter? </p>
<p>Let’s take the example of understanding children of divorced parents. There is <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1403494815614463">research</a> suggesting adolescents have fewer psychological problems if their parents have joint custody rather than if they are solely in the care of one parent.</p>
<p>So joint custody might seem the way to go. However, all children in this study were from Sweden. Are children in Sweden similar enough to children in Australia to make this relevant? What if your children are growing up in Australia but you’re originally from Nigeria? Are the study findings still relevant?</p>
<p>The reality is we don’t actually know, as research involving different cultural groups is rare. This issue is particularly relevant in a multicultural Australia where Australians identify with <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/face-facts-cultural-diversity">more than 270 ancestries and one in four</a> Australians was born overseas.</p>
<p>Critically, most Australians were not born in the US where most published child development research is conducted.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/snowplow-helicopter-medieval-parenting-advice-for-the-ages-29850?sr=1">Snowplow, helicopter – medieval? Parenting advice for the ages</a></em></p>
<hr>
<p>Lack of cultural diversity in psychological research is not new. It’s an issue that’s been discussed <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7302/full/466029a.html">among psychologists</a> and the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/world/americas/26iht-currents.html">public</a>. </p>
<p>What we revealed is there’s been little change in the cultural bias of study participants over time. For instance, we found little difference in the backgrounds of participants when we compared studies published in 2008 to those published in 2015.</p>
<h2>This is not just a parenting issue</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175294/original/file-20170622-27880-zc7c44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175294/original/file-20170622-27880-zc7c44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175294/original/file-20170622-27880-zc7c44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175294/original/file-20170622-27880-zc7c44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175294/original/file-20170622-27880-zc7c44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175294/original/file-20170622-27880-zc7c44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175294/original/file-20170622-27880-zc7c44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175294/original/file-20170622-27880-zc7c44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Expectations about when toddlers can recognise themselves in the mirror are based on Western children and that’s not always relevant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/356386859?src=Q-pDrcqwWq_hNfPEwAQ9mQ-1-2&size=medium_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is not just a problem for parents trying to work out how to best raise their children, but a broader issue for science as we try to chart how the human mind works.</p>
<p>Typically, researchers will draw conclusions framed in general terms, using phrases like “children at X age will do Y in situation Z”, without mentioning the environment those children grow up in.</p>
<p>Researchers fail to acknowledge the findings might be different if the study were conducted with children in different circumstances.</p>
<p>For example, based on a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test">standard test</a> children from non-Western backgrounds do not recognise their mirror image as themselves <a href="http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118596854.html">before the end of their second year</a>. But children in Western populations typically make this connection from around 18 months of age.</p>
<p>Yet when writing about Western children researchers typically state something like “at least by 24 months of age, toddlers … know what they look like”. But “toddlers” don’t, just <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00863.x/abstract">mainly white, middle-class toddlers, from English-speaking families</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-in-a-milestone-understanding-your-childs-development-50894?sr=1">What’s in a milestone? Understanding your child’s development</a></em></p>
<hr>
<p>So, what we think we are discovering about the way all children develop may only apply to a small portion of the world’s population. We may know a whole lot less about the way children develop than we think we do.</p>
<h2>How do you judge parenting advice?</h2>
<p>Next time you find yourself in a position of seeking advice, giving advice or developing policy relating to children’s development based on sound research, be vigilant about where the research was conducted and the cultural origin of the study participants.</p>
<p>It might be wholly relevant. But it might not be. </p>
<p>We need to do a better job of encouraging researchers to broaden their sampling to better reflect the communities that might benefit from their research. And funding bodies must now prioritise research that draws upon broader samples of people. </p>
<p>Scientific journals need to advocate for studies that do not just include participants from Western, English-speaking backgrounds. And the public needs to be aware of where research is coming from and what it really tells them. </p>
<p>Only then will we move more assuredly towards a reliable science of the human mind that yields research we can apply to parents across the global community.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79333/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Nielsen receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Most psychology research that forms the basis of parenting advice might not apply to you. So, how do you know whether to trust it?Mark Nielsen, Associate Professor, School of Psychology, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/768482017-05-08T00:53:28Z2017-05-08T00:53:28ZPeople don’t trust scientific research when companies are involved<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168205/original/file-20170507-19132-lu45yn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People seem to think industry-funded research belongs in the garbage.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hiv-testing-laboratory-singleuse-plastic-syringes-506118349">mllejules/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A soda company sponsoring <a href="https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/">nutrition research</a>. An oil conglomerate <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26052016/agu-american-geophysical-union-exxon-climate-change-denial-science-sponsorship">helping fund a climate-related research meeting</a>. Does the public care who’s paying for science?</p>
<p>In a word, yes. When industry funds science, credibility suffers. And this does not bode well for the types of public-private research partnerships that appear to be becoming <a href="http://www.rdmag.com/article/2015/04/how-academic-institutions-partner-private-industry">more prevalent</a> as <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report/chapter-4/recent-trends-in-u-s-r-d-performance">government funding for research and development lags</a>. </p>
<p>The recurring topic of conflict of interest has made headlines in recent weeks. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49331/title/National-Academies-Revise-Conflict-of-Interest-Policy/">revised its conflict of interest guidelines</a> following <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172317">questions about whether members</a> of a recent expert panel on GMOs had industry ties or other financial conflicts that were not disclosed in the panel’s final report.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175643">Our own recent research</a> speaks to how hard it may be for the public to see research as useful when produced with an industry partner, even when that company is just one of several collaborators.</p>
<h2>What people think of funding sources</h2>
<p>We asked our study volunteers what they thought about a proposed research partnership to study the potential risks related to either genetically modified foods or trans fats.</p>
<p>We randomly assigned participants to each evaluate one of 15 different research partnership arrangements – various combinations of scientists from a university, a government agency, a nongovernmental organization and a large food company.</p>
<p>For example, 1/15th of participants were asked to consider a research collaboration that included only university researchers. Another 1/15th of participants considered a research partnership that included both university and government scientists, and so on. In total we presented four conditions where there was a single type of researcher, another six collaborations with two partners, four with three partners and one with all four partners. </p>
<p><iframe id="O9jF8" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/O9jF8/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>When a research team included an industry partner, our participants were generally less likely to think the scientists would consider a full range of evidence and listen to different voices. An industry partner also reduced how much participants believed any resulting data would provide meaningful guidance for making decisions.</p>
<p>At the outset of our work, we thought including a diverse array of partners in a research collaboration might mitigate the negative perceptions that come with industry involvement. But, while including scientists from a nonindustry organization (particularly a nongovernmental organization) made some difference, the effect was small. Adding a government partner provided no substantive additional benefit.</p>
<p>When we asked participants to describe what they thought about the research partnership in their own words, they were skeptical whether an industry partner could ever be trusted to release information that might hurt its profits.</p>
<p>Our results may be even more troubling because we chose a company with a good reputation. We used pretests to select particular examples – of a corporation, as well as a university, government agency and nongovernmental organization – that had relatively high positive ratings and relatively low negative ratings in a test sample.</p>
<h2>Can industry do valid science?</h2>
<p>You don’t have to look far for real-life examples of poorly conducted or intentionally misleading industry research. The <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmithkline-plead-guilty-and-pay-3-billion-resolve-fraud-allegations-and-failure-report">pharmaceutical</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/22/pesticide-manufacturers-own-tests-reveal-serious-harm-to-honeybees">chemical</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html">nutrition</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/25/fossil-fuel-firms-are-still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups">petroleum</a> industries have all weathered criticism of their research integrity, and for good reason. These ethically questionable episodes no doubt fuel public skepticism of industry research. Stories of pharmaceutical companies conducting <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138">less than rigorous clinical trials</a> for the benefit of their marketing departments, or the tobacco industry steadfastly denying the connection between smoking and cancer in the face of mounting evidence, help explain public concern about industry-funded science. </p>
<p>But industry generally has a long and impressive history of supporting scientific research and technical development. Industry-supported research has <a href="https://www.wired.com/2012/09/ff-corning-gorilla-glass/">generated widely adopted technologies</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2016-03-12/after-moores-law">driven the evolution of entire economic sectors</a>, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/20/local/la-me-stanford-ovshinsky-20121021">improved processes that were harmful to public health and the environment</a> and <a href="https://www.bell-labs.com/our-people/recognition/">won Nobel Prizes</a>. And as scientists not currently affiliated with industry scramble to fund their research in an era of tight budgets, big companies have money to underwrite science.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168152/original/file-20170505-19116-145xhb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168152/original/file-20170505-19116-145xhb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168152/original/file-20170505-19116-145xhb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168152/original/file-20170505-19116-145xhb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168152/original/file-20170505-19116-145xhb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168152/original/file-20170505-19116-145xhb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168152/original/file-20170505-19116-145xhb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168152/original/file-20170505-19116-145xhb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Does it matter within what kind of institution a researcher hangs her lab coat?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/biologycourses/7006382260">Vivien Rolfe</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Can this lack of trust be overcome? Moving forward, it will be essential to address incentives such as short-term profit or individual recognition that can encourage poor research – in any institutional context. By showing how quickly people may judge industry-funded research, our work indicates that it’s critical to think about how the results of that research can be communicated effectively. </p>
<p>Our results should worry those who want research to be evaluated largely on its scientific merits, rather than based upon the affiliations of those involved. </p>
<p>Although relatively little previous scholarship has investigated this topic, we expected to find that including multiple, nonindustry organizations in a scientific partnership might, at least partly, assuage participants’ concerns about industry involvement. This reflects our initial tentative belief that, given the resources and expertise within industry, there must be some way to create public-private partnerships that produce high-quality research which is perceived widely as such.</p>
<p><a href="http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/public-skeptical-of-research-if-tied-to-a-company/">Our interdisciplinary team</a> – a risk communication scholar, a sociologist, a philosopher of science, a historian of science and a toxicologist – is also examining philosophical arguments and historical precedents for guidance on these issues.</p>
<p>Philosophy can tell us a great deal about how the values of investigators <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-tapestry-of-values-9780190260811?lang=en&cc=us">can influence their results</a>. And history shows that not so long ago, up until a few decades after World War II, many considered industry support <a href="http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3081">a way to uphold research integrity</a> by protecting it from government secrecy regimes.</p>
<p>Looking forward, we are planning additional social scientific experiments to examine how specific procedures that research partnerships sometimes use may affect public views about collaborations with industry partners. For example, perhaps open-data policies, transparency initiatives or external reviewer processes may alleviate bias concerns.</p>
<p>Given the central role that industry plays in scientific research and development, it is important to explore strategies for designing multi-sector research collaborations that can generate legitimate, high-quality results while being perceived as legitimate by the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76848/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joseph D. Martin receives funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aaron M. McCright, John C. Besley, Kevin Elliott, and Nagwan Zahry do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scientists need funding to do their work. But a new study finds turning to industry partners taints perceptions of university research, and including other kinds of partners doesn’t really help.John C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityAaron M. McCright, Associate Professor of Sociology, Michigan State UniversityJoseph D. Martin, Fellow-in-Residence at the Consortium for History of Science, Technology, and Medicine and Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre for History and Philosophy of Science, University of LeedsKevin Elliott, Associate Professor of Fisheries & Wildlife and Philosophy, Michigan State UniversityNagwan Zahry, PhD Student in Media and Information Studies, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/658732016-11-01T19:07:35Z2016-11-01T19:07:35ZEssays on health: how food companies can sneak bias into scientific research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141182/original/image-20161011-3903-1rt4e5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Proper nutrition is critical to combatting the costly and deadly epidemics of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This is the first in our occasional series of longer reads titled, Essays on health. Enjoy!</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Should we eat breakfast every day? How much dairy should we have? Should we use artificial sweeteners to replace sugar? If we had the answers to these questions, we could address some of today’s biggest public health problems such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-australians-die-cause-1-heart-diseases-and-stroke-57423">heart disease</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-australians-die-cause-2-cancers-58063">cancer</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-australians-die-cause-5-diabetes-57874">diabetes</a> and <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4338.0%7E2011-13%7EMain%20Features%7EOverweight%20and%20obesity%7E10007">obesity</a>.</p>
<p>Consumer choice is often guided by recommendations about what we should eat, and these recommendations also play a role in the food that’s available for us. Recommendations take the form of dietary guidelines, food companies’ health claims, and clinical advice.</p>
<p>But there’s a problem. Recommendations are often conflicting and the source of advice not always transparent.</p>
<p>In September, a <a href="http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255">JAMA Internal Medicine</a> study revealed that in the 1960s, the sugar industry paid scientists at Harvard University to minimise the link between sugar and heart disease. The historical papers the study was based on showed researchers were paid to shift the blame from sugar to fat as responsible for the heart disease epidemic. </p>
<p>The paper’s authors suggested many of today’s dietary recommendations may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry. And some experts have since questioned whether such misinformation can have <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?_r=0">led to today’s obesity crisis</a>. </p>
<p>We’d like to think industry influence of this scale won’t happen again. We’d like to have enough systems in place to shine a spotlight on any potential bias, or risk of it, as soon as it happens. But the reason it took so long to expose the sugar industry’s tactics is bias can be well hidden. To avoid the potentially huge ramifications, we need much better systems in place when it comes to nutrition research.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143856/original/image-20161031-15783-1nr46d7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143856/original/image-20161031-15783-1nr46d7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143856/original/image-20161031-15783-1nr46d7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143856/original/image-20161031-15783-1nr46d7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143856/original/image-20161031-15783-1nr46d7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143856/original/image-20161031-15783-1nr46d7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143856/original/image-20161031-15783-1nr46d7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143856/original/image-20161031-15783-1nr46d7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Partnerships between industry and research institutions aren’t uncommon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How are national guidelines put together?</h2>
<p>Governments issue national dietary guidelines to inform people’s food choices and the nation’s food policies. To be credible and scientifically sound, they should obviously be built on rigorous evidence.</p>
<p>Best practice for creating guidelines includes beginning the process with a systematic review, which is a study that identifies all the available evidence on a particular research question. This ensures studies favourable to a particular party can’t be cherry-picked. But systematic reviews are only as valid as the studies out there. </p>
<p>An important part of any systematic review is to evaluate the biases in the studies included. Public health dietary guidelines and policies are influenced by <a href="http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691975.001.0001/acprof-9780199691975">political</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/food-industry-digs-in-heels-over-traffic-light-labels-311">economic</a> and social factors. That’s inescapable. But if the evidence on which these decisions are based is flawed, the entire foundation for systematic reviews, guidelines and policy, crumbles.</p>
<p>So <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3726025/">identifying and minimising bias</a> in <a href="https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-236332510/corporate-manipulation-of-research-strategies-are">each part of the research process</a> – from the researcher’s decision on which question to answer in the study, to the publication of the results – is essential to having a strong evidence base. </p>
<p>Bias in research is the systematic error or deviation from true results or inferences of a study. Pharmaceutical, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497700/">tobacco</a> or chemical industry funding of research <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23235689">biases human studies</a> towards outcomes favourable to the sponsor. </p>
<p>Even when studies use similar rigorous methods – such as keeping study information away from participants (blinding) or removing selection bias between groups of patients (randomisation) – studies sponsored by a drug’s manufacturer are more likely to find the drug is more effective or less harmful than a placebo or other drugs. </p>
<p>This bias in pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies is just like the sugar industry sponsored studies that downplayed sugar’s link to heart disease while putting the blame on fat.</p>
<p>Financial conflicts of interest between <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217">researchers and industry</a> have also been associated with research outcomes that favour companies researchers are affiliated with.</p>
<p>So how does this happen? How can industry-funded studies use methods similar to non-industry funded studies but have different results? Because bias can be <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3726025/">introduced in several ways</a>, such as in the research agenda itself, the way research questions are asked, how the studies are conducted behind the scenes, and the publication of the studies. </p>
<p>Industry influences on these <em>other</em> sources of bias in research often remains hidden for decades.</p>
<h2>Types of hidden bias</h2>
<p>It took over 40 years to show how the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497700/">tobacco industry undermined the research agenda</a> on the health effects of secondhand smoke. </p>
<p>It did this by <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8784687">funding “distracting” research </a> through The Center for Indoor Air Research, which three tobacco companies created and funded. Throughout the 1990s, this centre funded dozens of research projects that suggested components of indoor air, such as carpet off-gases or dirty air filters, were more harmful than tobacco. The centre did not fund research on secondhand smoke. </p>
<p>There is a high risk of bias when the methodology of the study (how the study is designed) leads to an error when assessing the magnitude or direction of results. Clinical trials with a high risk of methodological bias (such as those lacking randomisation or blinding) are more likely to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7823387">exaggerate the efficacy</a> of drugs and underestimate their harms. </p>
<p>A 2007 <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17954797">paper that compared over 500 studies</a> found those funded by pharmaceutical companies were half as likely to report negative effects of corticosteroid drugs (used to treat allergies and asthma) as those not funded by pharmaceutical companies.</p>
<p>Many <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23235689">industry-sponsored studies</a> of drugs are conducted for regulatory approval and the regulators require certain methodological standards. So often, the design of industry-sponsored studies is pretty good and the bias is elsewhere. It can be in how the questions are framed or another common form: publication bias.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143857/original/image-20161031-15728-19a0mmj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143857/original/image-20161031-15728-19a0mmj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143857/original/image-20161031-15728-19a0mmj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143857/original/image-20161031-15728-19a0mmj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143857/original/image-20161031-15728-19a0mmj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143857/original/image-20161031-15728-19a0mmj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143857/original/image-20161031-15728-19a0mmj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143857/original/image-20161031-15728-19a0mmj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clinical trials with a high risk of methodological bias are more likely to exaggerate the efficacy of drugs and underestimate their harms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Publication bias occurs when entire research studies are not published, or only selected results from the studies are published. It is a common myth <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2406472">publication bias</a> comes about because scientific journal editors reject studies that don’t support the hypothesis or question the studies were asking. These are called negative or statistically non-significant studies. But <a href="https://abstracts.cochrane.org/2004-ottawa/methodological-quality-accepted-and-rejected-papers-submitted-three-leading-biomedical">negative research is as likely to get published</a> as positive research. So it’s not that.</p>
<p>Analysis of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908919">internal pharmaceutical industry documents</a> from 1994 to 1998 shows the pharmaceutical industry had a deliberate strategy to suppress publication of sponsored research unfavourable to its products. Industry-funded investigators were not allowed to publish negative research that did not support the efficacy or safety of the drugs being tested.</p>
<p>This has contributed to a clinical literature dominated by studies demonstrating the efficacy or safety of drugs. The tobacco industry also has a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497700/">history of stopping the publication of research</a> it funded if the findings didn’t lean in favour of tobacco products.</p>
<p>Previous research on bias in tobacco, pharmaceutical, and other industry-sponsored research is relevant here because the biases that affect research outcomes are the same, regardless of the exposure or intervention being studied. When it comes to nutrition research, we actually know little about how corporate sponsorship or conflicts of interest might bias the research agenda, design, outcomes and reporting. </p>
<h2>Industry influence on nutrition research</h2>
<p>The credibility of nutrition research has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/04/what-this-scathing-exchange-between-top-scientists-reveals-about-what-nutritionists-actually-know/">come under attack</a> because the funding source is often not transparent and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26595855">industry-funded research</a> affects food policy. But we actually know very little about how sponsorship biases nutrition research.</p>
<p>Our systematic review, published this week in <a href="http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6721">JAMA Internal Medicine</a>, identified and evaluated all studies that assessed the association between food industry sponsorship and published outcomes of nutrition studies.</p>
<p>We were surprised to find few studies examining the effects of industry sponsorship on the actual, numerical findings of the studies. Only two of 12 studies assessed the association between food-industry sponsorship and the statistical significance of research results, and neither found a link.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143858/original/image-20161031-15728-1qg5nml.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143858/original/image-20161031-15728-1qg5nml.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143858/original/image-20161031-15728-1qg5nml.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143858/original/image-20161031-15728-1qg5nml.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143858/original/image-20161031-15728-1qg5nml.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143858/original/image-20161031-15728-1qg5nml.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143858/original/image-20161031-15728-1qg5nml.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143858/original/image-20161031-15728-1qg5nml.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We know very little about the association between industry sponsorship or authors’ conflicts of interest and the results of nutrition research.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1473360526459-100c8e8ec8d8?ixlib=rb-0.3.5&q=80&fm=jpg&crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&s=7049742c2ff3515292f2ed87d6edc07f">Jordan Whitfield/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Only one paper found studies sponsored by the food industry reported significantly smaller harmful effects of consuming soft drinks than those without industry sponsorship. Overall, our review showed we know very little about the association between industry sponsorship or authors’ conflicts of interest and the actual results of nutrition research.</p>
<p>More studies assessed the association of industry sponsorship with authors’ conclusions or interpretations of their findings (not the results). Eight reports, when taken together, found industry sponsored studies had a 31% increase in risk, compared to non-industry sponsored studies, of having a conclusion favouring the sponsor’s product.</p>
<p>So what we know is that food industry sponsorship is associated with researchers interpreting their findings to favour the sponsor’s products. Conclusions don’t always agree with results but can be spun to make readers’ interpretations more favourable.</p>
<p>For example, a study might find that a particular diet leads to weight loss and an increase in heart disease but the harmful effects of heart disease are omitted from the conclusion. Only the weight loss is mentioned. This <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20501928">spin on conclusions</a> is a tactic <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18024482">in other industries</a> and can influence how research is interpreted.</p>
<p>But it is the results (the research data) that really matters. From the standpoint of developing systematic reviews and evidence-based recommendations, the results are more important than conclusions because only the data, and not a researchers interpretation of them, are included in the reviews.</p>
<p>We need more rigorous investigation of the effects of industry sponsorship on the results of both primary nutrition studies and reviews. For example, <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162198">our recent study</a> examined 31 reviews of the effects of artificial sweeteners on weight loss. We found reviews funded by artificial sweetener companies were about 17 times as likely to have statistically significant results showing artificial sweeteners use is associated with weight loss, compared to reviews with other sponsors.</p>
<h2>Nutrition research agenda</h2>
<p>Our studies mentioned above didn’t identify any differences in the quality of industry-sponsored and non-industry sponsored nutrition research. But, similar to research sponsored by the pharmaceutical or tobacco industries, sponsors could affect outcomes by setting the research agenda, framing the questions or influencing publication.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143859/original/image-20161031-15810-5l72oq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143859/original/image-20161031-15810-5l72oq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143859/original/image-20161031-15810-5l72oq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143859/original/image-20161031-15810-5l72oq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143859/original/image-20161031-15810-5l72oq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143859/original/image-20161031-15810-5l72oq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143859/original/image-20161031-15810-5l72oq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143859/original/image-20161031-15810-5l72oq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There is a lack of transparency about funding sources and conflicts of interest in the area of nutrition research.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/nutritionism/9780231156561">research agenda</a> focused on single ingredients (such as sugar) or foods (such as nuts) rather than their interactions or dietary patterns may favour food-industry interests. This is because it may provide a platform to market a certain type of food or processed foods containing or lacking specific ingredients, such as sugar-free drinks.</p>
<p>Most data sources used to study publication bias in other research areas are not available for nutrition research, which make it more difficult to detect.</p>
<p>Researchers have identified publication bias in pharmaceutical and tobacco research by <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217">comparing the full reports</a> of drug studies submitted to regulatory agencies with publications in the scientific literature. Researchers have also <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908919">compared data released</a> in legal settlements with published research articles. There are no similar regulatory databases for foods or dietary products.</p>
<p>It is possible to use statistical methods to estimate publication bias in large samples of nutrition research, as in other <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25880564">research areas</a>. Interviewing industry-funded researchers could be another way to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9676672">identify publication bias</a>.</p>
<p>Another obstacle to rigorously assessing bias in nutrition research is the lack of transparency about funding sources and conflicts of interest. Our review of artificial-sweetener studies found authors of 42% of them had conflicts of interest not disclosed in the published article.</p>
<p>Also, about one third of the reviews didn’t disclose their funding sources. Although disclosure in journals is improving over time, not all journals enforce disclosure guidelines for author conflicts of interest and research funding sources.</p>
<h2>Reducing bias in nutrition research</h2>
<p>Studies on research bias related to pharmaceutical and tobacco industry sponsorship and conflicts of interest has <a href="http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/our-governance-and-policies/cochrane-policies/access-data-alltrials">led to international reforms</a>. These have been in the area of government requirements for research transparency and data accessibility, stricter journal and university standards for managing conflicts of interest, and methodological standards for critiquing and reporting evidence (and conducting systematic reviews). Similar reforms are needed in nutrition research.</p>
<p>Further studies will determine which mechanisms to reduce bias should be urgently implemented for nutrition research. Options include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>refined methods for evaluating studies used in systematic reviews</p></li>
<li><p>enforced policies for disclosing, managing or eliminating financial conflicts of interest across all nutrition-related journals and professional associations</p></li>
<li><p>mechanisms to reduce publication bias, such as study registries that describe the methods of ongoing studies, or providing open access data</p></li>
<li><p>revised research agendas to address neglected topics and to produce studies relevant to population health, without corporate sponsors driving the agenda</p></li>
<li><p>independent sources of funding for nutrition research, or, at a minimum, industry sources pooling their funding with research funds administered by an independent party.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In the current economic climate, in which industry funding is encouraged by universities, studying bias is important and contentious research. </p>
<p>Research institutions should implement strategies that reduce the risk of bias when industry sponsors research. They could do this by a risk-benefit assessment for accepting industry sponsorship of research. This would evaluate the sponsor’s control of the design, conduct and publication of the research, as well as any risk to the institution’s reputation.</p>
<p>The full effects of industry sponsorship and financial conflicts of interest on nutrition research remain hidden. An evidence base as rigorous and extensive as the the one on bias in pharmaceutical and tobacco research is needed to illuminate how nutrition research is at risk of bias.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65873/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>In the last 5 years, Lisa Bero has received research funding from the California Breast Cancer Research Program, The Cochrane Collaboration Methods Innovation Fund, US Office of Research Integrity, and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
She is Co-Chair, Cochrane Governing Board since 2013 and receives remuneration that is paid to the University of Sydney.</span></em></p>Food, drug and other companies often sponsor research in the hope it might produce results favourable to their products. How can we ensure such research remains independent?Lisa Bero, Chair professor, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.