Study shines new light on how harmful industries shape scientific narratives

A new study, published in Addiction, shines a light on how industries associated with health harms-such as tobacco, fossil fuels, and in this case, alcohol-can distort the evaluation of scientific research through industry-friendly commentary. 

A team of researchers led by UVic's Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR), analyzed 268 critiques of alcohol and health studies published online since 2010 by the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research, or ISFAR. 

ISFAR describes themselves as an international group of "invited physicians and scientists who are specialists in their fields and committed to balanced and well researched analysis regarding alcohol and health." However, members have continuing alcohol-industry connections, says Tim Stockwell, CISUR scientist, professor emeritus at UVic's psychology department, and co-author of the study. 

Although ISFAR has long-standing ties to the alcohol industry, it is still frequently quoted in the media as an authoritative voice on matters relating to alcohol and health. We had observed their critiques seemed to favour studies finding health benefits from alcohol, and to be critical of those that said otherwise. We set out to test this impartially and comprehensively." 

Tim Stockwell, CISUR scientist, professor emeritus at UVic's psychology department, and co-author of the study

The researchers' hypotheses were confirmed, whether using data generated by human coders or by computer-based text analysis of the ISFAR critiques. The team found studies supporting an industry-friendly narrative were ten times more likely to receive a positive review from ISFAR than those suggesting otherwise. Notably, ISFAR's favorability ratings were completely unrelated to the studies' level of scientific merit as assessed by an independent expert who was not otherwise involved in the project. 

"This analysis confirms the impression that ISFAR is an industry-friendly echo chamber whose critiques are determined more by whether they like the conclusions contained in research papers than by scientific merit," says Stockwell. "We've seen this playbook before with the tobacco industry trying to discredit science around smoking's harms." 

It's a reminder that we need to be mindful of where our information is coming from and who is paying for its creation, says Stockwell.