Health experts reject industry-backed funding for alcohol research

Industry views about the Banned Drinker Register in the Northern Territory: Early lessons from a qualitative evaluation

Introduction and Aims

The Northern Territory Government has recently planned and implemented an extensive suite of alcohol harm minimisation policies, including the reintroduction of the Banned Drinker Register (BDR). It is an explicit alcohol supply reduction measure that places persons who consume alcohol at harmful levels onto a register, prohibiting the purchase of alcohol from take‐away liquor outlets. This paper explores industry stakeholders' perspectives regarding the extent to which the BDR is meeting its objectives to improve community health and safety by reducing alcohol‐related harms.

Design and Methods

Interviews and one focus group were conducted with 66 alcohol industry stakeholders from urban and remote locations. Focusing on outcomes both central (crime and safety) and peripheral (health and therapeutic support) to the stakeholders' interest, the authors used inductive thematic analysis to examine participants' perceptions about the effectiveness of the BDR.

Results

Analysis revealed mixed views about the effectiveness of the BDR. There is a tension between the objective to address public amenity and decrease crime, as expressed by the participants, compared to the health‐focused approach to therapeutic services and referrals identified in other sources.

Discussion and Conclusions

Drawing on these findings, alongside other relevant sources, the authors argue there is a need for a more effective communication strategy to the public and professional community to enhance the capacity of the BDR to meet its goals. The authors recognise the limitations of alcohol industry stakeholder views and identify the need for a comprehensive evaluation approach that includes multiple stakeholder perspectives.

Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community

ISSUES

Alcohol companies have recently invested large sums of money in answering research questions to which they have clear vested interests in the outcomes. There have been extensive concerns about corporate influence on public health sciences, following the experience with the tobacco industry.

APPROACH

This systematic review aims to investigate the perspectives of researchers on the activities of alcohol industry actors in relation to science, in order to guide future research. All data published in peer-reviewed journals (including commentaries, opinion pieces, editorials and letters as well as research reports) were eligible for inclusion. This analysis focuses on the manifest rather than latent content of the articulated views, and accordingly adopts a thematic analysis using an inductive approach to the generation of themes.

KEY FINDINGS

There are serious concerns identified in three main areas, principally defined by where the impacts of industry scientific activities occur; on evidence informed policy making (instrumental uses of research by industry actors), on the content of the scientific evidence base itself (industry funding as a source of bias); and on the processes of undertaking research (transgressions of basic scientific norms). There are also opposing views which provide a useful critique. The evidence-base on the validity of all concerns has been slow to develop.

IMPLICATIONS

The concerns are extensive, longstanding and unresolved and high quality investigations are needed.

CONCLUSION

This study informs the detailed content of the research needed to address the concerns identified here.

Funding of Gambling Research: Ethical Issues, Potential Benefit and Guidelines

There has been an unprecedented growth of legalized gambling opportunities in Canada over the past two decades, partly to generate revenues without raising taxes. Unfortunately, for 2-3% of the Canadian population, gambling can become disordered (i.e. develop into a gambling addiction). To help attenuate the harms and prevalence of disordered gambling, all provincial governments earmark a portion of gambling revenues for the prevention, treatment and research into disordered gambling. However, the field of gambling studies has recently come under criticism in the way research is conducted. At the forefront of the criticism is the issue of accepting funding from the gambling industry. We provide an overview of the ethical considerations, potential ethical issues, and the possible benefits of accepting such funding. The aim of the present paper is not to argue for or against accepting industry funding, but rather to delineate the potential ethical issues and benefits related to that acceptance. More importantly, we provide a summary of best practice ethical guidelines, and recommendations to guide in the ethical decision making process in accepting or declining funding from gambling industry. To this end, we use the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists as a framework in which to situate our guidelines and recommendations. Given that Canadian researchers have a long history and continue to contribute valuable knowledge in the field of gambling studies, it is of important for gambling researchers to be aware of the ethical considerations and issues related to funding from gambling industry.

Be aware of Drinkaware

In 2006, Drinkaware was established as a charity in the United Kingdom following a memorandum of understanding between the Portman Group and various UK government agencies. This debate piece briefly reviews the international literature on industry social aspects organizations, examines the nature of Drinkaware's activities and considers how the public health community should respond. Although the British addiction field and the wider public health community have distanced themselves from the Portman Group, they have not done so from Drinkaware, even though Drinkaware was devised by the Portman Group to serve industry interests. Both long-standing and more recent developments indicate very high levels of industry influence on British alcohol policy, and Drinkaware provides one mechanism of influence. We suggest that working with, and for, industry bodies such as Drinkaware helps disguise fundamental conflicts of interest and serves only to legitimize corporate efforts to promote partnership as a means of averting evidence-based alcohol policies. We invite vigorous debate on these internationally significant issues and propose that similar industry bodies should be carefully studied in other countries.

Vested interests in addiction research and policy. Alcohol industry use of social aspect public relations organizations against preventative health measures

AIM

It has been proposed that alcohol industry 'social aspects/public relations' organizations (SAPROs) serve the agenda of lending credibility to industry claims of corporate responsibility while promoting ineffective industry-friendly interventions (such as school-based education or TV advertising campaigns) and creating doubt about interventions which have a strong evidence base (such as higher taxes on alcoholic beverages). This paper investigated whether submissions to Australia's National Preventative Health Taskforce (NPHT) from alcohol industry bodies regarding the Australian SAPRO, Drinkwise, have used this organization to demonstrate corporate responsibility while promoting industry-friendly interventions.

METHOD

Submissions to the Australian National Preventative Health Taskforce (NPHT) discussion paper Australia, the healthiest country by 2020 (n = 375) were examined to identify those with primary alcohol content. A thematic analysis of the resulting 33 submissions was conducted to determine which organization, institution or individual discussed Drinkwise.

SETTING

Australia.

FINDINGS

Nine of the 33 submissions discussed Drinkwise; all were submitted by the alcohol industry or its affiliates. Every industry submission referred to Drinkwise either as providing evidence of social responsibility or by suggesting the industry-friendly actions of Drinkwise as alternatives to those recommended by the NPHT report.

CONCLUSIONS

Drinkwise has been used by the alcohol industry to create an impression of social responsibility while promoting interventions that maintain profits and campaigning against effective interventions such as higher taxes on alcohol.