Research Funding from addictive consumptions industries Issues & concerns

1. Research Funding from addictive consumptions industries Issues & concerns Peter J. Adams School of Population Health

2. Addictive consumptions are special

3. PROFIT HEAPS ADDICTIVE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS NON-ADDICTIVE NOT MUCH LOW HIGH

4. When the money’s there…. • Hard to resist • Money exchange establishes expectations &obligations • Reinforced by multiple exchanges

7. Ostrich Response • “I didn’t really see that!” • “We’ve done so much work already” • “Let’s just pretend”

8. Bargaining Response • “Maybe it’s not that bad” • “Gambling has its positive sides” • “Only a small number have problems”

9. Missionary Response • “Money is sitting there” • “This funding will save lives” • “If we don’t get it, somebody else less deserving will”

10. Macho Response • “Be realistic” • “To get things done you need to make some unpopular choices” • “You have to be in to win”

11. Desire vs Values • Messages favoured my ambitions • Ethical perspective minimised • Need an outside reference point to gauge my views

12. FUNCTIONS IN A WIDER ARENA SIMPLE TRANSACTION

13. Plugging in….

14. Political Chain of Engagement Tobacco Alcohol Gambling Industries POLICY MAKERS Lobbying & PR companies Public communication strategies Politicians Relationship building activities Producer & retail associations

15. Public Good Chain of Engagement Tobacco Alcohol Gambling Industries POLICY MAKERS Health & community programs Corporate social responsibility Public consultation Social aspects & public relations organisations Media coverage

16. Knowledge Chain of Engagement Tobacco Alcohol Gambling Industries POLICY MAKERS Researchers & research organizations Priority setting processes Government officials Funding & commissioning processes Communication & dissemination

17. Political Chain Tobacco Alcohol Gambling Industries Politicians Public Good Chain Public Consultation Government Officials Knowledge Chain

18. 1Ethical Risks 4Governance Risks 5Relationship Risks 3Reputational Risks 2ContributoryRisks Receiving Industry Funds?

19. Trying to do Good from sources that do Harm 1Ethical Risks Exploiting Vulnerable Groups Benefiting from Deprived & Addicted Money Derived From Harm

20. How Industry Benefits from the Relationship 2ContributoryRisk Improving Public Profile Contributing to Sales Positive view of Policy Makers

21. How Others will Judge the Relationship 3Reputational Risks Judgement of Funders Judgement of Colleagues Judgement of Stakeholders

22. Threats to Independence & Sovereignty 4Governance Risks Perceived Dependence Creeping Funding Reliance Increasing Silence & Compliance

23. Conflict from Differences in Viewpoint 5Relationship Risks Conflict between Sections Conflict between Colleagues Silencing & Leaving

24. How to work out when a relationship is too risky?

25. Accepting industry money generates conflicts of interest • Consuming profits contributes to increased demand • Once consumed once, more likely to consume again • On-going profit consumption could lead to dependency MORAL JEOPARDY

27. Continuum of Moral Jeopardy Intensity of Relationship

28. PHARMACEUTICALS ALCOHOL OIL PORN ARMAMENTS SLOTS LOTTERIES TOBACCO

29. Primary Concern Moderate Risk Extremely High Risk High Risk Low Risk

30. Intensity Indicators Purpose Extent Relevant-harm Identifiers Link

31. PurposeE R I L • Degree to which purposes between funder and recipient diverge • How do purposes match? • E.g. smoking cessation researcher funded by tobacco company

32. PExtent R I L • Degree to which the recipient is reliant on this source • What percentage of funding? • E.g. Genetics researcher unwilling to question source when funding increases

33. PE Relevant-harm I L • Degree of harm associated with this form of consumption • Some products are less harmful than others • E.g. researcher accepts money from lotteries but not slots

34. PE R Identifiers L • Degree to which the recipient is visibly identified with the funder • Branding using names, logos, advertising & other promotional linkages • E.g. new laboratory with sign acknowledging brewery funding

35. PE R I Link • Nature and directness of the link between recipient & funder • Use of mediating bodies or contracts? • E.g. Earmarked alcohol funding channelled through government departmen

36. MOD RISK HIGH RISK EXTR. H. RISK LOW RISK Group 1: A public health researcher receiving funds directly from a tobacco company in publicly visible way Group 2: A genetics project receiving half its funds from a brewery Group 3:Research equipment funded partially from donations from a gambling machine trust Group 4: A symposium funded by a small grant anonymously from lotteries

37. Traffic Light of Risk Class A Tobacco, Armaments, Slots, Alcohol Class B Psychotropics, Lotteries, Fast Food Class C Pornography, Plastic Surgery, Oil

38. Final Thoughts • Learnt much from tobacco • Easy to plug-in without realizing wider consequences • Promoting open dialogue about sources is key • Need ethical benchmarks & codes of practice