(NaturalHealth365)  Bias in research has been defined as “any trend or deviation from the truth in data collection, data analysis, interpretation and publication which can cause false conclusions.”  Some of the major types of bias in clinical research – which can show up before, during, and after a clinical trial – include selection bias (in which study participants are not representative of the population intended to be analyzed), study design bias (in which flawed research methods or data analysis alter the outcomes), publication bias (the failure to publish the results of a study on the basis of the results of the study findings), and funding or sponsorship bias (the tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of the study’s financial sponsor).

The latter type of bias, funding bias, has never been more important to understand, recognize, and avoid now that we live in a world where the $1.42 trillion pharmaceutical industry has increasing power and influence over our culture, government, and way of life.  After all: if we’re supposed to “follow the science” when making decisions like whether to inject ourselves or our children with experimental drugs, what happens when “the science” is flawed?

Follow the science?  How about following the money: scientific research is consistently biased in favor of whoever is funding the research, new data shows

The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) recently released the results of their new report, Sponsor Influences on the Quality and Independence of Health Research, exploring the damaging effects of funding bias in clinical research.

“Governments, philanthropic organizations, and private industry fund human health and medical research,” NASEM writes in a summary of a virtual workshop held in December 2022 discussing their findings.  “Various funding sources might bias research so that the results are more favorable to their agents.  Funders may influence investigative scope, specific questions posed, experimental design, and principal investigator appointments.  Reporting, analysis, dissemination, and communication and data availability, reanalysis, and replication can also experience bias from a funding source.”

The researchers wanted to know, in other words, how much influence the sponsor of a study has on the actual results of the study.  Can the person or organization funding research hold more sway over the results than the actual facts?

Sadly, we know this to be true based on prior evidence.  One 2017 meta-analysis published by the prestigious Cochrane Library concluded that compared to non-industry-sponsored studies, industry-sponsored studies were 30 times more likely to report statistically significant efficacy estimates for drugs.

Imagine that: a study funded by a drug company is MORE likely to show that the company’s new drug is “safe and effective” compared to a study on the same drug funded by an independent team of researchers who do NOT have such an obvious conflict of interest.  This kind of bias is happening all over the scientific community!

Speaking on the NASEM report in a June 8, 2023 article by Children’s Health Defense, Dr. Lisa Bero, chief scientist at the Center for Bioethics and Humanities and expert on industry bias in research, noted that based on “very strong evidence,” scientific research is consistently biased in favor of whoever is funding the research – whether that’s Big Pharma, Big Ag, or even the tobacco industry.

Coming to its own conclusions: Big Pharma financial interests influence “the science”

It’s not just the science itself that’s often flawed by funding bias – it’s how the science is being disseminated to the public that is potentially problematic, too.

Dr. Bero notes that researchers are often influenced by their study sponsors as they write their papers’ conclusions – and, indeed, may come to conclusions that don’t accurately reflect the true results of the study.  It’s a huge problem, considering that media outlets typically share the conclusions of a study rather than the actual results and data from the study itself.

And let’s not forget: all this is compounded by the fact that many public health organizations are funded by the industries they are supposedly tasked with regulating – including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is largely funded by the very pharmaceutical companies vying to get their drugs FDA-approved.  Talk about a conflict of interest!

Will the issue of bias in scientific research ever be resolved?  (Remember, we’re talking about the same research that is being used to justify discriminatory and overreaching public health policies like jab passports and forced mask use for kindergarteners.)  Strategies like more public funding have been proposed—but as Children’s Health Defense notes, “many public institutions also are influenced by industry funding.”

And while plenty has been written about how to identify and avoid bias in research, it seems obvious that we have a long way to go before public agencies, researchers, and Big Pharma companies are held more accountable for being transparent about their conflicts of interest, financial resources, and research incentives.

In the meantime, consumers can protect themselves and better advocate for informed consent by educating themselves about things like research bias, asking more questions (instead of just eating up the latest headlines), and maintaining a healthy dose each of skepticism and intuition.

Sources for this article include:

Nationalacademies.org
Childrenshealthdefense.org
NIH.gov
NIH.gov
NIH.gov
Pharmanewsintel.com