Abstract

Despite extensive evidence of bias resulting from industry sponsorship of research across health sciences, and longstanding concerns about alcohol industry research funding, there has not been a strong tradition of empirical research on this subject. This study explores researcher decision-making regarding industry funding at the early career stage and the consequences of such funding. Data were derived from semi-structured interviews with researchers working on alcohol policy-relevant topics who first received alcohol industry funding early in their careers (n = 7). Data were analyzed thematically using NVivo software. These early-career researchers largely initiated contact with the industry by applying for funding, mostly from industry research funding organizations. Their decisions were shaped by their research environments, where seeking alcohol industry funding early in careers was normative, in large part due to senior colleagues and peers having connections to the industry. Despite being ‘no strings attached’ a ‘snowball’ effect occurred, whereby initial funding led to more industry funding and other opportunities. Receiving early career industry funding had long-term consequences for researchers, not only shaping research networks but also leading to reputational harms as norms around the acceptability of industry funding changed. Exploring this controversial subject in the context of researcher careers adds depth and meaning to larger quantitative studies on bias resulting from industry sponsorship, and identifies mechanisms through which bias may be produced. Further research is required to study the impact of these processes on alcohol policy-relevant research agendas, and also to explore the wider generalizability of these exploratory findings.

摘要

尽管有大量证据表明行业赞助健康科学的研究会导致偏见，以及长期以来对酒精行业研究资金的担忧，但在这一主题上并没有很强的实证研究传统。本研究探讨了研究人员在职业生涯早期阶段有关行业资助的决策以及此类资助的后果。数据来自对从事酒精政策相关主题的研究人员的半结构化访谈，这些研究人员在职业生涯早期首次获得酒精行业资助（n = 7)。使用 NVivo 软件对数据进行专题分析。这些早期职业研究人员主要通过申请资金开始与行业接触，主要来自行业研究资助组织。他们的决定是由他们的研究环境决定的，在职业生涯的早期寻求酒精行业的资金是规范的，这在很大程度上是由于与该行业有联系的资深同事和同行。尽管“不附加任何条件”，但还是出现了“滚雪球”效应，即初始资金带来了更多的行业资金和其他机会。接受早期职业行业资助对研究人员产生了长期影响，不仅塑造了研究网络，而且随着围绕行业资助可接受性的规范发生变化，还导致声誉受损。在研究人员的职业背景下探索这个有争议的主题，可以增加对行业赞助导致的偏见的更大规模定量研究的深度和意义，并确定可能产生偏见的机制。需要进一步的研究来研究这些过程对酒精政策相关研究议程的影响，并探索这些探索性发现的更广泛的普遍性。