We often assume that the conclusions drawn from research studies about foods and drugs are honest and accurate. Historically, most nutrition research has been government-funded, with leading organizations such as the NIH in the United States and NIN in India in charge. However, budget cuts in the 21st century have led private industry, particularly food and pharmaceuticals, to fill the funding gap. Medical and nutritional research can be categorized as follows:
(1) Primary research
Traditionally funded by the NIH, it focuses on broad public benefits such as clinical research and randomized trials. Projects such as the human genome and human proteome are still funded by the NIH. However, due to decreased government funding, this research has become less common.
(2) Applied research
Applied research uses science to prevent and treat disease. Some companies still receive funding from the NIH, but many are supported by the pharmaceutical, food, and supplement industries. It can be categorized into studies supporting different foods, studies justifying supplements, or studies showing the harms of certain foods or lifestyles.
(3) Public health research
This aims to improve public health at a population level and is ideally funded by governments, but private companies are also increasingly involved.
(4) Clinical research
The research, which focuses on drug testing, is primarily funded by pharmaceutical companies. Variations in how people respond to treatment (e.g., due to their gut microbiome) complicate results. For example, if a drug helped 30% of participants in the placebo group and 70% of participants in the experimental group, the drug would be considered effective, even if 60% were not cured or were cured solely due to the placebo effect. , will be prescribed to everyone. , you are still exposed to side effects without getting any benefits.
(5) Pharmacological research
This field studies how chemicals interact with biological systems and plays a central role in drug development. The important points worth noting are:
5.1 The objective is not necessarily to cure the disease, as this may conflict with the long-term profitability of the pharmaceutical company.
5.2 Pharmaceutical companies often focus on managing health markers such as blood pressure, blood sugar levels and cholesterol, which usually requires increasing doses over time.
5.3 These companies emphasize early detection and claim it saves lives. While this is true for certain diseases such as cancer, most lifestyle-related diseases often require medication to be started sooner. Additionally, they are lobbying for lower standards for starting treatment, as seen with drugs for blood pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol.
5.4 Pharmaceutical companies are promoting stricter control of these markers, often proposing higher or more frequent dosing. For example, increasing your daily dosage from 2 to 3 tablets will increase your business by 50%. This approach inspired the ACCORD study (2001-2009). However, the study backfired as it showed increased mortality in the experimental group, leading to its early termination.
Bias in research
When we read a research paper, we expect it to be honest and objective. However, a variety of factors can distort this objectivity. Many studies have shown how research can be manipulated to favor the organizations funding the research. Some of these biases are summarized below.
(1) Unbalanced funding
In the United States, government research funding has declined significantly over the past 50 years. By 2021, private funds had contributed $633 billion to research and development (R&D), while government funding was only $76 billion. Private funding often comes with specific benefits and conditions, and research has shown that research funded by private funds rarely conflicts with the sponsor’s interests. This can occur for several reasons.
– Research may be designed to avoid negative outcomes. For example, using the Standard American Diet (SAD) as a control, it appears to be healthier compared to almost all alternative diets.
– In some cases, study design may obscure significant negative results. For example, in one study, college students who ate large amounts of white bread appeared to improve their health. However, since the students had to reduce their intake of more harmful foods such as eggs, sausage, and bacon, it would be misleading to conclude that white bread is healthy.
– Funders may stop the study prematurely if they find that the results are unfavorable to them. To prevent this, a law was enacted that requires research to be registered with government authorities before it begins and cannot be canceled midway through. However, this law is not always strictly enforced for bureaucrats hoping for a comfortable career as a consultant after retirement.
– Before publishing your research, you must provide an overview. Funders often manipulate this summary to downplay negative findings. A notable example is Sen. Bob Dole’s change in the wording of George McGovern’s 1977 Dietary Guidelines. Initially recommending reducing meat intake, the guidelines have changed to encourage eating more red meat. The two statements have completely different meanings.
(2) Myth bias
Myths can distort researchers’ judgments. For example, high protein intake has long been recommended, despite evidence that excess protein harms the kidneys and liver. Similarly, the myth that plant proteins are incomplete was proven false, but it persisted for many years.
The dairy industry has perpetuated the idea that milk is the best source of calcium, despite evidence suggesting that milk may contribute to osteoporosis.
(3) Academic pride bias
Respected experts may distort their findings to defend their previous position. One example is Dr. Ancel Keyes, whose *Seven Countries Study* promoted a low-fat diet by excluding data from 15 countries that contradicted his hypothesis.
(4) Publication bias
Positive results are more likely to be publicized, distorting perceptions. Negative results are often reluctant to publish, leading to a distorted understanding of specific treatments.
For example, if three studies found that egg white therapy cured stage 2 breast cancer, all three studies could be published. However, if seven subsequent studies show otherwise, only one or two may be published. Future researchers may incorrectly conclude that the treatment is effective, leading to further research based on the flawed premise.
(5) Media bias
The media likes sensational stories, which can lead to biased reporting. Key advertisers, the food and pharmaceutical industries, influence coverage, leading to overexposure of certain dietary trends while underreporting scientifically sound approaches. For example, Dr. Atkins’ high-protein, high-fat diet has received more media coverage than Pritikin’s low-fat, high-carbohydrate approach, even though the latter is scientifically more sound. Ta. Sensational books like *Grain Brain* and *Wheat Belly* also received more press coverage due to the influence of powerful food industry lobbies that supported such narratives. Furthermore, because the media relies heavily on advertising revenue from the food and pharmaceutical industries, they are often reluctant to publish research that criticizes these industries.
(6) Government bias
Government agencies often face conflicts of interest as bureaucrats seek consulting work after retirement and elected officials raise money from the industries they regulate.
The public relies on government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety of medical devices.
Conflicts of interest inherently exist in the drug and device approval process because the FDA relies primarily on clinical trials conducted by the companies that manufacture these products. Research results are often ambiguous and controversial. The FDA sometimes approved drugs and devices despite staff objections. The problem recently came to light in a device called MitraClip, made by Abbott Laboratories, that was approved by the FDA in 2013 to repair leaky heart valves. More than 17,000 reports have been filed complaining about this device.
(7) Other conflicts of interest
Political, personal ambitions, and other conflicts can further complicate the research environment.
conclusion
It is important to approach your research carefully. Understanding potential biases, especially funding sources, can help reveal the full story behind research findings. Always scrutinize conclusions before accepting them.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
The views expressed above are the author’s own.
end of article
