Introduction: Debates in the peer-reviewed literature on alcohol industry involvement in science have been polarized, with the activities of the International Center on Alcohol Policies and industry provision of research funding being particularly contentious. We aimed to explore researchers’ views on the nature of the debates and the issues raised. Methods: Qualitative interview study with experienced researchers working on alcohol policy-relevant topics across ten countries (n = 37). Thematic analysis of views articulated, supported where appropriate by accounts of how experiences informed particular perspectives. Results: The main finding is how much common ground there now is among participants, regardless of whether they had previously worked with industry organizations or received alcohol industry funding. Norms have changed and participants agree that the earlier debates were dysfunctional. Participants on all sides of these earlier debates experienced significant psychological burdens as a result of industry-related activity in alcohol research. These include reputational harms from working with industry organizations and/or receiving research funding, and harassment by industry for producing findings contrary to commercial interests. Key ongoing contentious issues include the extent to which conflicts of interest can or should be managed by individual researchers, and how distinct the alcohol industry is from other funders and other industries. Participant views on ways forward include improving the evidence-base underpinning the debates, and having collegiate discussions among researchers, including all strands of opinion and experience. Conclusions: This group of alcohol researchers shares more nuanced contemporary positions on issues relating to industry involvement in science than are reflected in the existing material in peer-reviewed journals. Almost all regard the alcohol industry’s involvement in research as having been damaging.
Eur Addict Res

中文翻译：

---

研究人员对酒精行业参与科学的看法：访谈研究的结果

简介：同行评议文献中关于酒精行业参与科学的争论已经两极分化，国际酒精政策中心的活动和行业提供的研究资金尤其有争议。我们旨在探讨研究人员对辩论的性质和提出的问题的看法。方法：对十个国家（ n = 37）从事酒精政策相关主题的经验丰富的研究人员进行定性访谈研究对所表达观点的主题分析，在适当的情况下通过经验如何影响特定观点的说明来支持。结果：主要发现是参与者之间现在有多少共同点，无论他们之前是否曾与行业组织合作或获得过酒精行业的资金。规范发生了变化，参与者同意早期的辩论功能失调。由于酒精研究中与行业相关的活动，这些早期辩论的各方参与者都经历了巨大的心理负担。其中包括因与行业组织合作和/或接受研究资金而造成的声誉损害，以及因生产违反商业利益的调查结果而受到行业的骚扰。正在进行的主要争议问题包括利益冲突可以或应该由个体研究人员管理的程度，以及酒精行业与其他资助者和其他行业的区别。结论：与同行评审期刊的现有材料中所反映的相比，这组酒精研究人员在与行业参与科学相关的问题上分享了更微妙的当代立场。几乎所有人都认为酒精行业参与研究是有害的。
欧洲瘾君子水库