tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/publication-19777/articlespublication – The Conversation2016-11-02T00:56:19Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/677782016-11-02T00:56:19Z2016-11-02T00:56:19ZIs the NHMRC funding process fair?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144004/original/image-20161101-8691-1svpsp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who are the winners and losers from recent medical research funding announcements? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/dl2_lim.mhtml?src=TKMwGPLCrhDu0yZMccFbew-1-19&id=131016746&size=medium_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week’s announcement of funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/">NHMRC</a> provoked mixed reactions.</p>
<p>Australia’s leading biomedical research funding agency allocated <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/releases/2016/government-invests-further-190-million-health-and-medical-research-including-10">A$190 million</a> for a range of projects, including centres of excellence to find a solution to alcohol-related health problems in Aboriginal populations, and research into stillbirth, a devastatingly sad end to many pregnancies.</p>
<p>Outstanding young researchers, within two years of completing their PhDs, received NHMRC fellowships to train in prestigious laboratories and to bring their new skills back to the Australian community. </p>
<p>The funding decisions follow a highly competitive and intense selection process that took up months of research time; applicants crafted the best application possible to convince panels of scientists that their research deserved funding more than a competitor’s.</p>
<p>However, after each round of funding announcements some researchers are left questioning how the NHMRC chooses which research to fund. Others question whether the very process of how funding applications are assessed gives some types of researchers or research an unfair advantage.</p>
<h2>Peer review for grants and fellowships</h2>
<p>The process of awarding grants and fellowships is based upon a rigorous and thorough <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/peer-review">peer review process</a>.</p>
<p>A fellowship or grant review panel scores and ranks applications, with help from external assessors, the top experts in their fields.</p>
<p>To assess the research proposals, the NHMRC has established rigorous scoring criteria to ensure it chooses the best ones.</p>
<p>These criteria rely heavily on:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the feasibility of success, judged by reviewing supporting scientific data</p></li>
<li><p>the innovative aspect of a project</p></li>
<li><p>the number and the prestige of the scientists’ publications in specialised journals.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The NHMRC then funds the best-ranked applications. </p>
<h2>Do some researchers have an unfair advantage?</h2>
<p>Sadly, since 2010, the success rate of all funding project applications has steadily declined, which has a considerable impact on the way reviewers evaluate research proposals for funding.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143790/original/image-20161030-15810-2d6yze.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143790/original/image-20161030-15810-2d6yze.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143790/original/image-20161030-15810-2d6yze.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143790/original/image-20161030-15810-2d6yze.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143790/original/image-20161030-15810-2d6yze.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143790/original/image-20161030-15810-2d6yze.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143790/original/image-20161030-15810-2d6yze.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143790/original/image-20161030-15810-2d6yze.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The funding rate for NHMRC project grants has steadily declined since 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Supplied by Gaetan Burgio</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Over the same time, the number of high-quality applications has increased. Applicants now spend months, if not years, of hard work allocating large resources to ensure they have a large volume of preliminary data for the proposal. They must publish in prestigious scientific journals to convince their peers the research is feasible and worth funding. </p>
<p>Sadly, the peer review system now punishes researchers with innovative projects that may be risky, but could be highly successful.</p>
<p>Well established investigators with mature projects produce large amounts of preliminary data for applications. However, younger researchers (who completed their PhD less than 15 years previously) with new research programs or groundbreaking research, struggle to generate similar volumes of data; their teams are smaller and have less funding; they take more risk and this leads to lower success rates in obtaining funding.</p>
<p>Female researchers taking parental leave or sick leave, or who have a child with disabilities, are also adversely affected as they lose years of research time, thus being less competitive than their male peers. The NHMRC takes these disruptions of a researcher’s research output and productivity into account, but they only allocate an extra year of publications to the CV of the researcher. Yet often these types of leave affect a researcher for many years.</p>
<h2>Seducing the assessors</h2>
<p>Many worthy and high-quality applications are submitted. But to receive funding, the proposal must seduce the independent referees and review panel. </p>
<p>This leaves a major flaw in the system – the chance that randomly allocated assessors may not like the proposal and the project won’t be funded simply because of the influence of one or two key people.</p>
<p>This means that new, groundbreaking projects from young researchers are often overlooked in favour of research that has proved successful in the past, but may no longer yield exciting outcomes. Young and/or female researchers tend to be sifted out as assessors favour “safe” research projects.</p>
<h2>The NHMRC knows all this</h2>
<p>The NHMRC is aware of the shortcomings of the review process and is conducting a <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/structural-review-nhmrc-s-grant-program">structural review of the entire grant program</a>. Researchers hope the review will lead to better distribution of research funds.</p>
<p>However, many young and highly talented researchers have already <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/01/16/3926579.htm">left academia</a> or are working overseas.</p>
<p>Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/older-academics-need-to-make-room-for-young-researchers-at-the-money-trough-20151008-gk43b9.html">Brian Schmidt</a> has openly discussed the importance of ensuring that younger researchers receive research money, as they are often the ones who conduct groundbreaking research. Sadly this is not happening in the current system.</p>
<p>The government established <a href="http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mrff">Medical Research Future Funds</a> to support medical research and innovation in Australia to notably address these issues.</p>
<p>However, the NHMRC’s investment in basic medical research is absolutely crucial if we want innovative approaches that address health related problems. The NHMRC deserves better support as part of this government’s <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au">innovation agenda</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gaetan Burgio receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS). </span></em></p>The recent NHMRC funding announcement has renewed criticism about how medical research is funded in Australia. Is the system fair? Or is it stacked against some researchers?Gaetan Burgio, Geneticist and Group Leader, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National 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.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/455672015-08-26T04:03:00Z2015-08-26T04:03:00ZFinancial reward for research output under the spotlight in South Africa<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92930/original/image-20150825-15886-n6g6bv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Questions are being asked whether the new funding formula will affect output in science journals. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">SHUTTERSTOCK</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest - Benjamin Franklin</p>
</blockquote>
<p>South Africa’s higher education <a href="http://www.sajs.co.za/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/SAJS%20111_7-8_Leader.pdf">funding</a> formula for research output is set for substantial <a href="http://www.sajs.co.za/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/Inglesi-Lotz_Commentary_0.pdf">changes</a> that come into place in 2016. </p>
<p>A new funding formula announced by the country’s Department of Higher Education and Training in March has prompted a thought-provoking reflection on current conditions in the world of academic cooperation and publishing.</p>
<p>Since<a href="http://www.dhet.gov.za/Reports%20Doc%20Library/New%20Funding%20Framework%20How%20Government%20grants%20are%20allocated%20to%20Public%20Higher%20Education%20Institutions.pdf"> 2004</a>, the rules, requirements and processes on which the award of research output funds has been based have changed. The role of agencies has also changed with the <a href="http://www.assaf.co.za/index.php?page_id=305">Academy</a> of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) taking on the major assessment and recommendation activities of 2014 and 2015.</p>
<p>For scholars, there remain two areas of caution. </p>
<h2>Proceed cautiously</h2>
<p>University screening committees are tasked with evaluating submissions but they do not have to accept them, even if they meet the department’s requirements.</p>
<p>Also, the academy and department teams do not have to agree with the institutional committees. This rigorous process is aimed at protecting and enhancing the value of research produced in South Africa. Such a step can help raise the country’s profile on the international academic landscape. </p>
<p>Ensuring the credibility of South African research and writing becomes, then, an incentive for scientists and scholars to aim to have their work recognised as part of the international scene, where it will be taken seriously, read and cited.</p>
<p>Most critically, the pool of publication award funds does not increase each year. So as long as the pie’s circumference remains more or less constant, the award slices will diminish in relation to the increase in the number of successful submissions. </p>
<p>It would, of course, be ideal - or, at the very least, doing the right thing - for the department to increase the size of the pie. After all, that’s what the National Development <a href="http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/Executive%20Summary-NDP%202030%20-%20Our%20future%20-%20make%20it%20work.pdf">Plan</a> requires. </p>
<p>Failing that, the importance of research output, now foregrounded by the international ranking systems and strongly supported by the universities, will continue to provide incentives for the publication of journal articles and books. Even at R90 000, less than the current R113 000, subsidies do remain an incentive for both researchers and universities.</p>
<h2>What the future holds</h2>
<p>But the future is not necessarily bleak. When the department replaced the higher education funding system with a new formula in 2004, it could not have imagined it would give rise to an entire new industry.</p>
<p>Yet this is exactly what happened. </p>
<p>University administrations assumed responsibility for the management of journal and book publication outputs by academic committees and by research support departments. </p>
<p>What also happened was a dramatic rise in research publications and the graduation of students with master’s and PhD degrees. Publication outputs increased by 18.9% between 2000 and 2004, by 30.7% between 2004 and 2008 after the new funding formula had been introduced, and then by a further 53.2% between 2008 and 2012. This amounted to an increase of 250% over the entire period covered in data obtained from <a href="http://chet.org.za/files/resources/CHET%20SA%20Indicators%20Profile%20of%20SA%20HE.pdf">research</a> conducted by Charles Sheppard.</p>
<p>And while the number of academic staff increased by 126% over the review period, the number of academic staff members with doctorates increased by 161%.</p>
<p>At the very least, it would seem to imply that sustained investment in knowledge production is a positive incentive.</p>
<p>And this is why the Minister of Higher Education and Training Blade Nzimande must continue to increase the annual allocation of funds to the higher education sector as required by the National Development Plan. </p>
<p>The Minister of Science and Technology Naledi Pandor must also boost her commitment to science. But the vigorous, critical factor in the growth of higher education research output is the considerable pressure placed on universities to improve their research outputs based on assessment by the global university ranking systems.</p>
<p>There are more than 30 such systems – but three dominate the field: the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), the Times Higher Education (THE) and the academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) - formerly the Shanghai Jiao Tong. </p>
<p>Of these, South African universities participate in all three but tend to focus on the first two. Both produce annual rankings at three levels: global, regional and for the BRICS countries. And there is a very high level of competition among South African universities to raise their positions globally, regionally and in the BRICS rankings, especially in the QS and THE rankings. </p>
<p>Journal articles and conference papers are still rewarded, but under more stringent conditions, while, under similarly stringent conditions, books are rewarded more generously than before. This is a recognition of the fact that different disciplines often publish in unrelated ways. Research based books are, for example, more common in humanities than in engineering, while conference papers are more often the vehicle for computer science research than, say, genetics.</p>
<p>In this academic Game of Thrones, universities pay serious attention to high quality, internationally recognised research. This increase in productivity, quality and international co-operation will, in all, likelihood improve each year.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This article is based on a leader in the July/August issue of the South African <a href="http://www.sajs.co.za/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/SAJS%20111_7-8_Leader.pdf">Journal</a> of Science.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45567/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Butler-Adam 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>The future is not bleak as long as the government recognises the importance of and continues investing in science.John Butler-Adam, Editor-in-Chief of the South African Journal of Science and Consultant, Vice Principal for Research and Graduate Education , University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.