People don’t trust scientific research when companies are involved | The Conversation US - The Conversation UK

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." by John C. Besley, Michigan State University; Aaron M. McCright, Michigan State University; Joseph D. Martin, University of Leeds; Kevin Elliott, Michigan State University, and Nagwan Zahry, Michigan State University, continues The Conversation US.

People seem to think industry-funded research belongs in the garbage.
Photo: mllejules/Shutterstock.com

A soda company sponsoring nutrition research. An oil conglomerate helping fund a climate-related research meeting. Does the public care who’s paying for science?

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 more prevalent as government funding for research and development lags.

The recurring topic of conflict of interest has made headlines in recent weeks. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has revised its conflict of interest guidelines following questions about whether members of a recent expert panel on GMOs had industry ties or other financial conflicts that were not disclosed in the panel’s final report.

Our own recent research 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.

What people think of funding sources 
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.

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.

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. 
Read more...

Recommended Reading

Never mind the queue, I picked the wrong shop. 
Photo: Shutterstock

There’s a mathematical formula for choosing the fastest queue by Enrico Scalas, University of Sussex and Nicos Georgiou, University of Sussex.

"There's also one that explains why you always think you've picked the wrong queue."

Source: The Conversation US and The Conversation UK