Introduction
Funding for scientist’s research can be attained in many different ways through internal or external grants. External grants may include financial support from local organizations, state and central government organizations, international organizations, corporate sectors and non-government organizations (Parija et al, 2012). Depending on where this financial support may come from, for example if the funding comes from a source which has a vested interest in the results, there is the possibility that the results can be biased. A vested interest is defined by Collins English Dictionary as ‘a personal reason for involvement in a situation, especially an expectation of financial or other gain’.
The problem with vested interest in research is that people have the potential to tamper with results in order to receive large amounts of money in return. Majority of the public will believe what they read in the media such as the news, articles or newspaper. Therefore if vested interest leads to results being altered, it can result in the public being given misleading or incorrect information, which may affect the choices they make. In turn it can cause huge public distress and issues if the results are that of something that affects a huge amount of people.
Arguments against statement
One known example that shows one scientist who did not remain independent in his research is Andrew Wakefield. Andrew Wakefield was a British doctor who published a study called ‘Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children’. His study stated that there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism in children. It looked at 12 children who had received the MMR vaccine, which is a single vaccination that protects against measles, mumps and rubella. The vaccination was developed as 3 single vaccinations in 1960 and in 1971 was developed into just 1 vaccination that is given to young children to protect them against these diseases. Wakefield’s findings stated that ‘the onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children’. The links that Wakefield made between MMR vaccine and autism were time based as children receive the vaccination around the age of 2 and autism presents itself in children around the age of 2.
Wakefield’s paper was published in the Lancet, which is known for its extremely high standards. On the Lancet’s homepage it states that they ‘select only the best research papers for their quality of work and the progression that they bring’ (thelancet.com). Wakefield’s study triggered huge media campaigns and sent vaccination rates plummeting and caused a huge health alarm within the public. Parents were refusing to get the vaccinations out of fear that’s their children would develop autism and this then lead to more and more children catching measles, mumps and rubella.
Between the years 1964 and 1965 a rubella epidemic resulted in 20,000 infants born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). As a result of this there were 2,100 neonatal deaths, 11,250 miscarriages, 3,580 born blind and 1,800 born mentally retarded. In the year 2000, there were only 6 reported cases of CRS (cdc, 2010).
It wasn’t until after the public uproar that Wakefield’s study was investigated. The investigation was lead by a man named Brian Deer. One thing that a lot of people were not aware of until the research was really looked into, is that Wakefield’s work was being funded by solicitors which were looking for evidence to use against vaccination manufacturers. The investigation revealed that Wakefield was being paid a huge amount of money from a lawyer named Richard Barr to create evidence against the vaccination while also being paid money from the parents of the 12 children to try and find a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and onset of autism.
This study was discredited after being investigated and 2 major studies have been done to prove that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism (National Health Service, [NHS], 2008). Wakefield’s results from his study were not reproducible meaning they were not reliable.
Arguments for statement
It can be difficult for many scientists to remain completely independent when they are being funded enormously by a vested interest. Even if the scientist does not completely make up certain results, they still have the capability to find subtle ways to shape the results or the communication of the research to make if very persuasive to readers; even if this means the research paper has not lost its integrity (Ohiostate.pressbooks.pub, 2016).
This particular scandal below shows where researchers were thought to not have remained independent when being funded by a vested interest, but in actual fact they did. In 2015 scientists were accused of being heavily influenced by food industries and claims were made that there were a lot of links and a huge amount of industry funding between the public health experts and the sugar industry such a coca-cola (Brown, 2019). However a research paper called ‘A sugary web of shame’ in the BMJ found no indication that the funding had caused any bias in the results. In fact, the results actually indicated that the amount of sugar added to food or that naturally present in fruit juice should be half that of the current recommendation. Therefore these results in the report were actually tougher on sugar than any other reports done by the World Health Organisation. The results were actually opposite of what the sugar industries would have been hoping for. This shows that these researchers did remain independent in their research even when they were being funded by a vested interest, which in this case was the sugar industries like Coca-Cola and different cereal brands (BBC News, 2015).
Critical evaluation
The ‘Sugary web of shame’ study showed that some scientists can remain independent in their research when being funded by a vested interest. However, Wakefield’s study revealed that it is certain that not all scientists can remain independent when their research is being funded by a vested interest. It is possible that almost all research contains some slight bias simple because it is very difficult for the scientists to avoid letting their own knowledge and life experiences effect their decisions about what is relevant to be included in their paper or research. However, this is completely different to a scientist completely altering the results for their own benefit, to an extent where the research has no validity or reliability to it.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
All the evidence on the MMR vaccination before Wakefield released his research paper had shown that it was extremely effective in reducing the number of cases of measles mumps and rubella. There was no reason for him to look in the vaccination in the first place as it was reducing the number of deaths due to the disease dramatically. When Wakefield was submitting his paper to be published, he failed to declare a lot of conflicting interests. He also carried out unethical, unnecessary and invasive tests on the children in the experiment.
It is difficult to understand how Wakefield’s paper ever got published on the Lancet as it requires a long, evaluative process which includes peer reviews for it to be accepted. Perhaps the fact that the title of the research paper did not contain the words MMR or autism give him a loop hole to go through as it did not attract as attention until it hit the media. The Lancet most definitely have to take some of the blame for allowing this paper to be published in the first place without fully looking into it to make sure it was legitimate. The publishing of the paper in the Lancet allowed the paper to receive wide, high profile media coverage (NHS,2010).
Wakefield’s paper is one of the most non retractable papers ever to be published as it left long lasting effects. A lot of people still believe Wakefield’s rational and many parents refuse to allow their children to get any vaccinations, not just the MMR vaccine because they live in fear that they might have some terrible side effects. One woman posted this on Twitter “My daughter is due her MMR Vaccine on Friday, but I am worried about the autism/complications risk” (Twitter, 2015). This shows that even many years after the scare that there is still huge fear within members of the public and the fact that some parents chose to not allow their children the vaccination, actually puts more children at risk of catching the disease.
Even though this study only contained 12 children in it meaning it was an insufficient cohort and the results could not be statistically significant, the study was still published and a lot of the public still believed what they read or heard as it caused them to feel fear for their own children. The role of the media played a huge part in Wakefield’s paper going viral as it was published everywhere on television and in newspapers, triggering vaccinations rates to plummet.
It was later found during the investigation that all of the 12 children had been pre-selected through MMR campaign groups, and when they were admitted to be tested that majority of the children’s parents were clients or contacts of Richard Barr, the lawyer who was paying Wakefield (Briandeer.com, 2019).
On the other hand, it can be looked at that this was just one rogue scientist who tampered with results for his own gain and that not all scientists live and work like this. There are procedures put in place to prevent research with no validity, reliability or credibility from being published. For example, for any paper to be published it has to be peer reviewed, meaning that a board of scholarly reviewers in the subject of a specific paper will review the paper for quality and whether the results justify the conclusions before it can be accepted for publication (Library.sdsu.edu, 2012). In Wakefield’s paper 4 of the 6 peer reviewers actually rejected Wakefield’s paper. Therefore it is highly surprising that the paper was passed and published in the Lancet and released to such a wide audience (O’Callaghan, 2013). The NHS states that after the investigation that 11 of its 13 authors withdrew their support for the research.
The study ‘A sugary web of shame’ shows that even when scientists are been funded by a vested interest such as Coca-cola, that they can remain independent and produce credible results, conclusions and findings which can be reproduced. The results of this experiment were completely opposite to what the sugary industries would have wanted proving that the funding from them did not inflict any bias on the research.
If the results had of came out in favour of the sugar industries, it is very likely that the scientist would have been accused of been bias due to the vested interest. Tracey brown who works for The Guardian made a statement that said “It is silly to assume that all research funded by corporations is bent” (Brown, 2019).
Conclusion
While some scientists do remain independent in their work even when funded is coming from vested interests, there is evidence to show that it can often be difficult for them to avoid any form of bias, especially if the outcome of the results will affect them. For example they may make a large sum of money if they tamper with results to produce a certain outcome.
It is very difficult to find an experiment with no form of bias as there are forms of bias that can be very difficult to recognise, and therefore avoid, such as a person’s beliefs or their own knowledge which they may subconsciously integrate into their results. This type of bias along with substantial funding coming from a vested interest makes it extremely unlikely for scientists to remain 100 percent independent in their research. It may not be as extreme as the study published by Wakefield, in that his results were completely false but there can most definitely be more mild types of bias integrated into a study to make it more persuasive to the readers. Therefore in conclusion it is high unlikely that scientists can remain independent when their work is being funded by a vested interest.
Stuck on your essay?
