Abstract
Many researchers who fail to obtain public funding turn to private companies for sponsorship, giving rise to “industry-sponsored research.” In comparison to publicly funded research, industry-sponsored research often displays more bias. More often than not, findings support sales promotions or generate revenue for sponsor companies. This bias raises questions regarding the ethics of industry-funded research. However, acknowledging the difficulty in obtaining public funding may help mitigate the harmful effects of industry-funded research. Several methods to mitigate the bias prevalent within industry-funded research may guarantee the legitimacy of sponsored reports.
Introduction
Many researchers who fail to obtain public funding turn to private companies for sponsorship, giving rise to “industry-sponsored research.” Industrial sponsorship provides necessary resources for studies that would otherwise go unfunded, accelerating knowledge in fields such as medicine and technology. However, it also compromises scientific objectivity in favor of commercial interests. Historically, big businesses have funded research to shape academic narratives. This was demonstrated by tobacco companies that downplayed smoking risks and again by Big Tech companies that suppressed concerns about AI. As public research funds diminish, researchers are forced to accept corporate contracts that undermine their scientific independence. While most researchers uphold academic integrity, others give in to industry demands. This leads to publications that warp findings, cherry-pick statistics, or purposefully misinterpret data. Thus, an ethical analysis of industry-funded research is necessary.
In this term, “industry” refers to “a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises [1].” This differs from a “company,” which describes a specific business organization that falls under the industry category [1]. “Research” refers to an entire body of publications on a topic, while “study” refers to a single publication [2]. However, these terms can be used interchangeably due to their similar definitions. This paper will discuss two fields where industry sponsorship is currently a concern: pharmaceutical research and AI research.
Industry-Funded Research in Pharmaceutical Research
75% of all drugs approved by the FDA between January 2008 and December 2017 were sponsored by private companies [3]. In the pharmaceutical industry, drug companies compete to make the “most effective” drug by funding research that promotes sales of their product. They achieve this by either establishing their own research facilities or outsourcing their research to universities [4, 5]. Professor Victor Katch, from the University of Michigan, recounted when one of his graduate students received a contract to study the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on coronary risk. The company supplied them with fish oil capsules, placebos, and funds to cover travel expenses, publication costs, and compensation for study participants. The study ended in great success, concluding that high doses of omega-3 fatty acids did in fact improve immune function [6]. Katch himself went on to take part in many industry-funded research projects [4]. In retrospection, he noticed that there was a strong tendency for his industry-funded studies to reach conclusions that aligned with company interests. Were his results unconsciously being influenced by industry funding? Katch’s experience is universal, as studies funded by drug companies are about four times more likely to reach pro-industry conclusions than independently funded studies [4].
Even when unfavorable findings are reported, industrial sponsors can easily remove researchers who yield contradictory results [7]. This manipulation threatens both the dignity of researchers and public health. Such behavior was exhibited during research on birth control pills funded by a German pharmaceutical company [8]. Having provided the funds, the company ultimately had the power to decide what findings to share with the public. Although their research found that the contraceptive pill increased the risk of severe blood clots, it still went to market. As a result, the company was forced to discontinue the pill after facing numerous lawsuits stating that the drug resulted in severe blood clots [9]. This example emphasizes the public’s vulnerability to biased studies.
Statins, medicines that reduce cholesterol, provide another look into the unethical nature of industry-sponsored research. A scientific review looked at 192 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of statins from PubMed to determine if industrial sponsorship was a significant source of bias in determining drug efficacy. Out of all the papers that were reviewed, 95 were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Of the industry-funded papers, 65 were sponsored by the manufacturers of the new statin drug, while 30 were funded by competitors. The review found that papers sponsored by the new drug’s manufacturers reported favorable results 79% of the time. This was shockingly high compared to the mere 10% of favorable results reported by competitor sponsored papers [10]. Based on the large discrepancies presented by this review, it’s difficult to discern whether the manufacturers were overestimating efficacy or the competitors were underestimating efficacy. This demonstrates that when a study has industrial sponsorship, results depend upon the needs of the sponsor, not the efficacy of the drug.
Industry-Funded Research in Artificial Intelligence
In a very different sector of engineering, discussions on the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) typically hinge on the “black box” nature of AI models. The term “black box” is a nod to the elusive nature of AI models, as the exact mechanisms they use to generate outputs cannot be determined. This factor of uncertainty associated with the technology raises doubts about training methods and, more importantly, about the people in charge of creating training protocols. A 2021 joint study between the University of Toronto and Harvard revealed that of the 33 AI ethics professors published in Nature and Science, all but one had accepted funds from tech companies or worked as their contractors [11]. This emphasizes that those responsible for keeping Big Tech companies in check are also funded by them [12].
For example, in December 2023, researcher Joan Donovan was dismissed from her university employment. While at work, Donovan had championed the Facebook Papers – documents that “privately and meticulously tracked real-world harms exacerbated by its platforms, ignored warnings from its employees about the risks of their design decisions and exposed vulnerable communities around the world to a cocktail of dangerous content.” Coincidentally, her dismissal came shortly after Meta wrote a $500 million grant for AI research at the university, though the institution maintains the two are not connected [12, 13].
This abuse of influence has extended beyond funding research. Big Tech uses social platforms to influence fields like sociology, where studies depend on social platforms to analyze online behavior. In a Washington Post interview, 24 professors agreed that tech companies gain power over academia by controlling funding and access to data. The latter restrictions are so harsh at some companies that researchers are only granted access to restricted data after paying a fee or signing special contracts [11]. When questioned, a spokesman for one such company stated that these limitations allow them to “better understand [their] platform’s impact” [11].
By funding AI ethics research at universities and controlling data accessibility, Big Tech has the power to shape the discussion surrounding AI ethics. They can pressure researchers to generate findings that align with their own interests. Selective funding and data access pose a serious threat to the credibility of AI ethics research, especially considering the contradictory claims and actions of Big Tech companies – like the newest EU investigation into Apple, Google, and Meta’s antitrust violations [14].
The Necessity for a Consequentialist Perspective in Researchers
Industry funding may cause researchers to face incentives that directly contradict their commitment to objectivity. In a competitive environment with limited funding, career advancement often depends on published works in prestigious journals. The promise of ample resources to conduct and publish groundbreaking research that suits the goals of a company can be enticing. Moreover, researchers who achieved success with the support of industry sponsors may feel obligated to their benefactors, creating pressure to produce favorable results. These researchers fear that failing to meet expectations might jeopardize their funding and even careers. While some may attempt to conduct unbiased pharmaceutical research or develop ethical AI products that benefit users, these goals require a solid financial foundation. Researchers need impartial sponsors that provide funding without interfering with the integrity of their work.
From a consequentialist standpoint, incentives from industry-funded research must be weighed against the potential harms that arise from compromised results. As the birth control example illustrates, misleading findings can lead to devastating consequences [15]. Researchers who allow commercial interests to influence their judgment risk contributing to the development of unsafe products and the perpetuation of health hazards. This damages public trust in science, as people may become skeptical of expert advice and resistant to evidence-based studies [16].
Unethical Nature of Industry Sponsored Research
Utilitarianism states that the most ethical course of action is the one that maximizes well-being for the most people. In the case of pharmaceutical studies, conducting research that actually improves public health would be the most ethical course of action. However, the influence of corporate interests shifts the goal of research from benefiting society to benefiting the sponsor. This leads to the suppression of unfavorable findings and the promotion of harmful products.
Similarly, the common good perspective states that pharmaceutical research must aim to advance scientific knowledge and improve patient care. The design, execution, and publication of studies that favor certain products distort the scientific process and betray public trust in research. In addition to spreading misinformation about healthcare, this practice violates common good ethics by hindering the development of safe and effective treatments. Moreover, the manipulation of research by industry sponsors violates the intrinsic value and dignity of researchers. Sponsor companies see research as a means to an end, pressuring researchers to prioritize corporate interests over scientific integrity. While industry-funded research in the pharmaceutical field is largely unethical, these funds remain necessary for researchers who cannot obtain government or public funding for their studies.
Meanwhile, applying the consequentialist approach to industry-sponsored research in AI ethics reveals it is also unethical. Pressure to conform to the interests of sponsors may lead to the development of AI systems that prioritize profit over human well-being. This could have far-reaching consequences, such as the amplification of hate speech and the spread of disinformation, that would be detrimental to society. Similarly, researchers beholden to industry sponsors are unable to preserve academic integrity as selective data access and funding limit researcher autonomy and undermine the credibility of their work. Under the perspective of the common good, Big Tech sponsorship of AI ethics research undermines an academic’s ability to serve public interest. Contradicting obligations to industry and societal good prevent researchers from conducting impartial studies.
Additionally, the lack of independent oversight could lead to the monopolization of research within a certain industry. In the AI industry, regulation over data access severely limits the ability to build AI models with ethical oversight [17,13]. Consumers must simply trust that Big Tech companies will design “ethical” AI products, but these companies have already proven their lack of concern for ethics in antitrust and privacy lawsuits [18]. Researchers who need data are forced to tailor studies to favor the agendas of their sponsors, perpetuating the cycle of selective data access and allowing Big Tech companies to continue unethical practices.
Maintaining Integrity in Industry-Funded Research
Several strategies must be employed to mitigate the consequences of industry-funded research. Researchers must prioritize transparency by disclosing all financial ties and potential conflicts of interest related to their work, and institutions must mandate the public disclosure of industry relationships to expose any hidden affiliations of their scholars [4],[19]. Industry-funded studies must be subject to a rigorous independent peer review to identify biases and ensure that only scientifically sound work is published, regardless of funding source. Furthermore, academic institutions and professional societies must develop and enforce clear guidelines for managing conflicts of interest. For example, the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics prioritizes patient welfare above financial interests by assigning more lucrative research into expensive drugs or medications instead of allowing companies to select the research team [19]. Checks such as clinical trial registration, ethics committee oversight, and data monitoring boards may prove necessary to protect participant safety and data integrity [20].
Ultimately, restoring public trust in industry-funded research may require a fundamental shift in funding priorities. Balancing the influence of sponsorship with increased government support could reduce reliance on commercial partnerships and the associated conflicts of interest [19]. While such measures may temporarily slow the pace of research and innovation, these steps will protect ethical standards within the scientific community [21]. Until these measures are implemented, skepticism must remain the default when encountering industry-funded studies.
Conclusion
Overall, the disregard for scientific integrity and public welfare brought about by industrial sponsorship outweighs its ability to do good. Consequentialism reveals the profound risks posed when corporate interests corrupt scientific inquiry. Industry-funded research often leads to distortion of findings that align with commercial interests. Namely, pharmaceutical giants and Big Tech companies have manipulated academic publications to prioritize profits over public welfare. As more researchers rely on private contracts over public grants, studies are more likely than ever to yield biased results. To mitigate risks associated with industry-funded research, researchers should prioritize transparency by disclosing financial ties and potential conflicts of interest while subjecting their studies to rigorous checks and regulations to prevent bias in published results. While these measures may slow research and innovation, they uphold the ethical obligations of academia.
By Yu-Jen Warren Wang, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California
About the Author
At the time of writing this paper, Yu-Jen ‘Warren’ Wang was a freshman studying Computer Science at University of Southern California. He is interested in all things web development and enjoys playing table tennis, badminton, and basketball. He is also a privacy enthusiast who is currently booting GrapheneOS on his Pixel 7a. He treasures tranquil times he’s spent in the freshwater aquascapes he owns in Taiwan and speeding aimlessly across the Forza Horizon 5 map.
Links for Further Reading
Does industry funding equal conflict of interest? Often, it does Yale authors claim
A brief summary of a Yale study explaining the shortcomings of industry funded research
Increase in alcohol industry funded research is a cause for concern
Learn about how the Alcohol-Industry is also contributing to compromised research
A Scientist is Paid to Study Maple Syrup. He’s Also Paid to Promote It.
Another example of a niche sector where industry funded research aligns with corporate interests
References
[1] “Definition of INDUSTRY,” Merriam Webster, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti onary/industry.
[2] “Use of “paper” / “study” / … in scientific publications,” English Language & Usage Stack Exchange, October 2021. [Online]. Available: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/585774.
[3] D. Schulthess, H. P. Bowen, R. Popovian, D. Gassull, A. Zhang, and J. Hammang, “The Relative Contributions of NIH and Private Sector Funding to the Approval of New Biopharmaceuticals,” Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, pp. 1–10, September 2022. doi.org/10.10 07/s43441-022-00451-8.
[4] V. Katch, “Industry Funding: Pros and Cons,” Michigan Today, January 2016. [Online]. Available: https://michigan
today.umich.edu/2016/01/18/industry-funding-pros-cons/.
[5] A. Liu, Z. Becker, K. Dunleavy, F. Kansteiner, and E. Sagonowsky, “The top 10 most productive biopharma companies,” Fierce Pharma, September 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.fiercepharma.com/special-reports/top-10-most-productive-biopharma-companies.
[6] K. L. Nau, V. L. Katch, and A. C. Tsui, “Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Supplementation Alters Selective Plasma Lipid Values in Adults With Heart Disease,” Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 386, December 1991.
[7] Ethics of a potential collaborator removing another researcher from a project?,” Academia Stack Exchange, September 2016. [Online]. Available: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/76268.
[8] “YAZ,” Bayer, October 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/YAZ_EN_PI.pdf
[9] “Yaz Lawsuits – Yaz Birth Control Side Effects and Legal Information,” Drug Dangers. [Online]. Available: https://www.drugdangers.com/yaz/.
[10] “Industry Sponsorship bias,” Catalog of Bias. [Online]. Available: https://catalogofbias.org/biases/industry-spon sorship-bias/.
[11] J. Menn and N. Nix, “Big Tech funds the very people who are supposed to hold it
accountable,” Washington Post, December 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/12/06/academic-research-meta-google-university-influence/.
[12] “If Joan Donovan is right, buying silence in academia really is possible,” Cyber News. [Online]. Available: https://cybernews.com/editorial/big-tech-meta-google-donations-research-harvard/
[13] J. Menn, “Ousted propaganda scholar Joan Donovan accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta,”
Washington Post, December 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/12/04/joan-donovan-harvard-dismissal-complaint/.
[14] “EU investigating Apple, Google and Meta’s suspected violations of new Digital Markets
Act.” CBS News. [Online]. Available: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eu-apple-google-meta-investigation-new-digit al-markets-act-antitrust-law/.
[15] “Yaz Lawsuits | Blood Clot, Heart Attack & Stroke Claims,” Drug Watch. [Online]. Available: https://www.drugw atch.com/yaz/lawsuits/.
[16] “Industry funding: Pros and cons,” Michigan Today. [Online]. Available: https://michigantoday.umich.edu/2016 /01/18/industry-funding-pros-cons/
[17] L. Bero, “When big companies fund academic research, the truth often comes last,” The Conversation, October 2019. [Online]. Available:http://theconversation.com/when-big-companies-fund-academic-research-the-truth-often-comes-last-119164.
[18] C. Kang and D. McCabe, “U.S. Antitrust Case Against Google Is Just the Start,” The New York Times, May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/technology/google-apple-amazon-me ta-antitrust.html.
[19] J. L. Breault and E. Knafl, “Pitfalls and Safeguards in Industry-Funded Research,” Ochsner
Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 104–110, March 2020, doi: 10.31486/toj.19.0093.
[20] A. Bickford, “Maintaining Integrity in Industry-Sponsored Research,” AMA Journal of Ethics, vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 490–493, November 2004. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2004.6.11.jdsc2-
0411.
[21] R. P. Schwarz, “Maintaining integrity and credibility in industry-sponsored clinical research,” Control Clinical Trials, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 753–760, December 1991. doi: 10.1016/0197-