Funding: Tales of Defamation

Wide generalizations are being made in the media lately, regarding nutrition and obesity researchers and where they get their funding. Often, these get to levels of insulting comparisons accusing researchers of being just like big tobacco scientists. The most recent article trending in the NYT discusses the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN) and a few of its top researchers, like Jim Hill and Steven Blair (not surprisingly, names that are too big in nutrition are left out - Arne Astrupp is the Vice President of the European branch but his name wasn't implicated as being bought out in the article). The issue with the researchers is that they've taken money from Coke for their research, that their research pushes exercise over dietary intake as a cause of obesity (IMO, it's pretty weak data- their one paper on the topic relies heavily on 'we can't trust NHANES') and they pretty stupidly didn't disclose the funding on their webpage until it was pointed out to them. While I don't fully agree with their perspective on obesity (though I do think the energy flux theory is worth further study), to claim that GEBN is a front group and that these researchers are bought out is a far stretch. Like much of the observational evidence that fuels debates surrounding obesity, reverse causality isn't considered; anyone who knows Blair and Hill's work (eg Hill, 1998, 2005 - Blair has published/written extensively about the 'fat but fit' paradigm) knows that their opinions on exercise, obesity and treating metabolically unhealthy individuals have been around long before they started this network (addendum: see this 2008 interview with Blair + this 2012 Youtube video of Blair: "I've been arguing with the obesity cartel for a number of years now)). However, this isn't considered in the media coverage that's selling the shill card pretty hard (though this current article is softer than others I've seen). The lay perspective of this article appears to see little beyond the conspiracy, as evidenced by the comments.

Even MedPageToday is telling readers that Coca Cola money has bought out these researchers:

I've been watching the industry funded research wars for a while now, and have popped in occasionally, particularly as the message has become less about improving research and talking about industry lobbying, and more about attacking independent researchers who have sought out industry funding. Often, I see little more than conjecture in accusations against researchers, and those shouting the loudest don't help their case when they just point out funding and insinuate folly (unless we're saying that the data has been outright fudged, some critique of the methodology should accompany -- lest you open yourself to new biases). It's not surprising that some of the loudest voices in this field are those with no need for funding themselves - the few common names we see popping up and commenting have jobs/positions that rarely require the individual to be constantly writing grants in hopes of getting just one, and the reputation of a couple researchers' is just a necessary casualty in the righteous crusade against industry funded research. This 'expose' of GEBN isn't the first attempt by zealous anti-indu$try folks to take down the reputation of researchers in their crusade - let's not forget the BMJ's sugar series, which required Barry Popkin to step in and defend Susan Jebb, or the actually good diet soda study from Gary Foster and colleagues. Coke funding does not make the research bad, despite their corporate interests. The sacrifice of independent researchers' reputations in this crusade is truly a shame, since Coke is going to run ads of thin people running with Coke bottles, regardless of whether or not scientists get funding from them.

We could talk forever and ever about what level of bias is instituted by industry funding, how we weigh that bias against the many other biases that occur in research, and whether that bias actually hurts the research in ways that things like peer review and editors can't detect. We could also talk forever about whether we should be working with or against industry (or just flat out ignoring them). But these are likely conversations we'll never get people to agree on (Katz and Nestle, two involved in this debate regularly, certainly don't - see last paragraph).

What I want from those concerned about industry funding is to come off as genuine as possible. From someone in research surrounded by people pulling their hair out about grants (myself included), and looking for money to keep their research going, your crusade comes off as disingenuous. It's promoting a 'problem' that requires good faith that it's actually a problem, while offering no alternative funding solution (the evidence that industry funding of independent researchers being a problem pretty heavily relies on one PloS paper - anyone who has read the paper in full and the individual studies included knows that it does not say what most who cite it say it does).  I challenge those concerned about industry funding to make a conscious effort to match every statement of concern about industry funding, with a call to action, to get taxpayers to write to their congressmen/women and advocate for higher NIH/NSF funding. Shout from the rooftops both your concerns, and the plight of researchers who write 14 grants in hopes of getting 1 or 2. If you can be concerned about industry funded research, you should be just as concerned about non-industry funding that is available. It's a simple request and a small burden that would gain you significant amounts of respect from those in the research field. At the very least, present the argument to the public that research costs money, and that if they don't want it to be industry, they better be okay with it being their tax dollars.

Until the industry funded research argument is balanced by an equally loud message that non-industry funding is highly limited, those shouting the loudest do little to address their own issue. This notion that researchers seeking industry money are doing conflicted research does little but subtly suggest that academic researchers find a new job or risk having their reputations threatened due to their funding source (no, I'm not being dramatic - go look at articles written about Susan Jebb). Keeping up with the academia lifestyle is busy enough without a bunch of people who aren't in your field telling you how you should fund yourself. If you get the time, I'd also urge you to consider educating individuals' to encourage NIH to fund nutrition research that has been established as a priority by organizations like ASN. As evidenced by the seemingly consistent stream of low-fat vs low-carb studies in the literature, NIH doesn't seem to be paying attention to these.

Dr. Katz commented on the issue of industry funding, and attempts to separate the issue based on the type of industry doing the funding - he defends his funding from the California Walnut Commission for his own research on walnuts, but notes that Coke funding is different when it comes to the issue of energy balance because it 'inveighs against their product'. This is an area that has spawned much debate, especially among the dietetics community that has been critiqued for its corporate influences. Do we only accept money from Quaker Oats and not the American Beverage Association? This can sound great on the surface, until you acknowledge that Quaker Oats is owned by Pepsi. The issue gets pretty complicated when you note that companies make many products e.g. do we not allow Coke funding because of their sugar sweetened beverages, even though they produce 100 percent fruit juices and diet beverages? Do we accept dairy money when they offer low fat milk but their product is also made into ice cream? Do we accept money from meat producers? Depending on who you ask, funding from the Whole Grain Council can be a sound choice or the biggest bias in the world. Fifty years ago, the California Avocado Commission would've been a blasphemous choice of funding. Do we only accept nutrient dense food producers, and soda producers are out because soda has no other nutrients besides sugars? Do we then not accept producers of foods like potatoes, that are 'associated' with more weight gain than are SSBs? I don't particularly agree with Katz's assessment here that there is righteous and non-righteous sources of funding (haven't even touched on the ethical/environmental aspects of food). Again, regardless of the outcomes of Blair and Hill's research on energy balance (which is only indirectly related to Coke unlike Katz's research), Coke will still make the claim that its SSBs can be consumed in moderation and balanced with activity - the basics of thermodynamics let them make this claim, not new research on energy flux. I should note that Katz chose a convenient example since walnuts are hardly disputed as 'health food' (unless you're part of the seemingly growing number of researchers who think that high linoleic acid consumption has contributed to obesity); odd that he didn't choose to defend his egg industry funding, where the shill card is much more easily played.  It gets into a dangerously ambiguous realm to start saying that some types of industry funding are good but others are not. Katz might be convinced that Drs Hill and Blair are serving their funders, but the authors' publication history suggests otherwise. If anything, personal bias from researchers' attachment to a theory seems the stronger hypothesis, as opposed to mindless drones/shills doing Coke's bidding. The fact that Coke wants to toss a bunch of money at their hypothesis is just business as usual.

Note: The NYT could've easily made this a story about how Coke chooses to fund researchers whose opinions/theories aren't supported by the totality of the data. They could've said anything about how these researchers have been pushing this perspective for years, long before GEBN. They chose not to.