Science: Funding and Influence

In this year's Sense About Science Annual Lecture (how does one get invited to these things?) Fiona Godlee, Editor of the BMJ, makes a strong case for more independence in science. Godlee cites the various studies showing that clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies are far more likely to show positive results than the average.

This is hardly new, many people have written convincingly on the subject, and (whilst I'm not sure it's the final word on the matter) the Scientists for Global Responsibility report released last year gives a fairly comprehensive view of the problems. However, coming from the editor of a journal responsible for publishing these trials, Godlee's argument carries more weight. What did come as something of a surprise was Godlee's proposed solution to the problem of influence in medical research and policy - cut out conflict of interest completely.

Whether this is plausible, or even desirable, in a world where private money funds a huge amount of research is the million dollar question but it is refreshing to hear someone in a position of authority in the research community taking a stand on principle. It also got me thinking - if source of funding is a factor in research findings, how secure are other fields?

To be clear, I don't think anyone is suggesting that big pharma actively asks scientists to massage their figures, and I don't think medical scientists in receipt of industrial money intend to do so. However, the numbers speak for themselves, so there must be more subtle influence going on. What concerns me is how other funding sources might influence results, specifically how public money might have the same effect.

The recent history of science funding has seen an increased emphasis on the impact of research and a focus on subjects addressing national challenges. Whilst on one level I get this, who doesn't want us to get the most from our investment in science, who would argue that a silver bullet to climate change wouldn't be great? But if industrial funding can have such a profound, if subliminal, effect on results, can public money, given with such an explicit desire for impact, do the same? Arguably, the pressures are equivalent - come up with results that can fix something or make money and your chances of more funding are improved. Even a more fundamental focus on citation metrics could have influence given the received wisdom that it is easier to publish a positive result. If findings are inflated, will the very desire for impact undermine the ability to take publicly funded research out of the lab?

I don't know if this is a real effect and I find it harder still to think how to measure it. Presumably publicly funded research is the control for studies looking at corporate influence, but is there a universal benchmark? What money can truly be considered without strings? It may be that one could chart indicators such as average time to complete a research project, number of papers per grant, nominal positivity of results, against time. This might show research output changing as funding models change. On its own, this would prove nothing - these could just be legitimate signs of research getting better, more efficient - but would be a start.

It's tricky, and I don't have an answer. I sure no-one would argue that impact is not a great thing to have, I'm just not sure it's simple question of ask and ye shall get.