Minimising research censorship by government funders
2
International Journal of Drug Policy 17 (2006) 240–241 Response Minimising research censorship by government funders Wayne Hall Level 2 School of Population Health Building, School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston, Qld 4006, Australia Received 29 November 2005; received in revised form 1 February 2006; accepted 3 February 2006 Miller et al. (2006) raise an important question that deserves to be widely discussed in drug policy research, namely, how do we fund research on drug policy while ensur- ing that funding bodies do not control the research agenda, unreasonably restrict researchers’ activities and either censor or prevent the publication of unwelcome research findings? As they note, similar ethical issues have recently been raised in clinical medicine by the behaviour of pharmaceu- tical companies in controlling the type of research that is done and in suppressing the results of clinical trials that have been unfavourable to their products. The alcohol and tobacco industries have also been very effective in steering research towards polices that they prefer often to the detriment of effec- tive public health policies. The drug policy field may benefit from adopting some of the approaches recently developed in these fields. Concerns about interference in research and publication in the drug policy field are most often raised by the behaviour of government departments that increasingly fund and com- mission drug policy research. Because the findings of this research may adversely affect the reputations of governments and government departments, “project management” has become an increasingly central part of contractual arrange- ments between researchers and funders. Tight restrictions on publication may also be imposed on researchers who wish to access data sources controlled by government departments. Departments often want the to retain control over the pub- lication of reports, reserve the right to comment on draft papers before submission to peer reviewed journals and con- trol whether papers are published, and if published, when they will be published. This type of behaviour can be as damaging to good drug policy as the selective publication of clinical trial results can be to accurate evaluations of treatment efficacy. There are not a lot of data on the scale of these problems so I agree with the authors that we need well-documented E-mail address: [email protected]. case studies of these phenomena and surveys to quantify their prevalence in the field. In the interim I can add my own anecdotal experience at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in the late 1990s in Australia. In the midst of a media frenzy about heroin use, the Centre’s research was frustrated by some government officials who restricted access to data indicators of heroin use because of concern that media stories would embarrass the government. Vari- ous attempts were made to have the Centre sign “memo- randa of understanding” that would mean that we could only obtain access on the condition that we gave advance notice to government officials of all media stories. Other state offi- cials attempted to prevent the Centre from commenting on research findings that they thought would reflect adversely on government policy. We were able to resist these attempts at control with the help of an assertive Board of Manage- ment. Given these experiences, I support the precautionary poli- cies that Peter Miller and colleagues suggest as ways to minimise these problems. Ethics Committees should ask researchers about any conditions that have been imposed on the publication of research findings by funding bodies or data custodians and they should be prepared to prevent research from proceeding if researchers do not have an untrammelled right to publish their findings. The failure to publish research findings arguably dishonours the ethical requirement that the research serves a social good. Senior academic researchers should be prepared to “out” funding bodies for bad behaviour. Researchers with senior- ity and the protection afforded by tenure should be prepared to protect junior researchers and advocate for an unencum- bered right to publish research results. Research associations and professional societies in the drug policy field should also adopt policies that make it unethical for their members to accept research contracts, or to agree to conditions on data access that prevent the free publication of findings. This is a condition that universities should also insist upon before 0955-3959/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2006.02.003
-
Upload
wayne-hall -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Minimising research censorship by government funders
International Journal of Drug Policy 17 (2006) 240–241
Response
Minimising research censorship by government funders
Wayne HallLevel 2 School of Population Health Building, School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston, Qld 4006, Australia
Received 29 November 2005; received in revised form 1 February 2006; accepted 3 February 2006
Miller et al. (2006) raise an important question thatdeserves to be widely discussed in drug policy research,namely, how do we fund research on drug policy while ensur-ing that funding bodies do not control the research agenda,unreasonably restrict researchers’ activities and either censoror prevent the publication of unwelcome research findings?
As they note, similar ethical issues have recently beenrtdbittft
iomrabmpaDlptwtr
s
case studies of these phenomena and surveys to quantifytheir prevalence in the field. In the interim I can add myown anecdotal experience at the National Drug and AlcoholResearch Centre in the late 1990s in Australia. In the midstof a media frenzy about heroin use, the Centre’s researchwas frustrated by some government officials who restrictedaccess to data indicators of heroin use because of concern
0d
aised in clinical medicine by the behaviour of pharmaceu-ical companies in controlling the type of research that isone and in suppressing the results of clinical trials that haveeen unfavourable to their products. The alcohol and tobaccondustries have also been very effective in steering researchowards polices that they prefer often to the detriment of effec-ive public health policies. The drug policy field may benefitrom adopting some of the approaches recently developed inhese fields.
Concerns about interference in research and publicationn the drug policy field are most often raised by the behaviourf government departments that increasingly fund and com-ission drug policy research. Because the findings of this
esearch may adversely affect the reputations of governments
that media stories would embarrass the government. Vari-ous attempts were made to have the Centre sign “memo-randa of understanding” that would mean that we could onlyobtain access on the condition that we gave advance noticeto government officials of all media stories. Other state offi-cials attempted to prevent the Centre from commenting onresearch findings that they thought would reflect adverselyon government policy. We were able to resist these attemptsat control with the help of an assertive Board of Manage-ment.
Given these experiences, I support the precautionary poli-cies that Peter Miller and colleagues suggest as ways tominimise these problems. Ethics Committees should askresearchers about any conditions that have been imposed on
nd government departments, “project management” hasecome an increasingly central part of contractual arrange-ents between researchers and funders. Tight restrictions on
ublication may also be imposed on researchers who wish toccess data sources controlled by government departments.
the publication of research findings by funding bodies or datacustodians and they should be prepared to prevent researchfrom proceeding if researchers do not have an untrammelledright to publish their findings. The failure to publish researchfindings arguably dishonours the ethical requirement that ther
fitbaaaaa
epartments often want the to retain control over the pub-ication of reports, reserve the right to comment on draftapers before submission to peer reviewed journals and con-rol whether papers are published, and if published, when theyill be published. This type of behaviour can be as damaging
o good drug policy as the selective publication of clinical trialesults can be to accurate evaluations of treatment efficacy.
There are not a lot of data on the scale of these problemso I agree with the authors that we need well-documented
E-mail address: [email protected].
955-3959/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2006.02.003
esearch serves a social good.Senior academic researchers should be prepared to “out”
unding bodies for bad behaviour. Researchers with senior-ty and the protection afforded by tenure should be preparedo protect junior researchers and advocate for an unencum-ered right to publish research results. Research associationsnd professional societies in the drug policy field should alsodopt policies that make it unethical for their members toccept research contracts, or to agree to conditions on dataccess that prevent the free publication of findings. This iscondition that universities should also insist upon before
W. Hall / International Journal of Drug Policy 17 (2006) 240–241 241
allowing their academic staff to enter into research contractswith government departments.
Addiction journal editors (possibly via their associationthe International Society of Addiction Journal Editors) shouldrequire all authors to sign a statement that is published withthe article which explains who funded the study. Articlesshould follow the practice in leading medical journals inrequiring a positive statement that the lead author had com-plete control over the study data, analysis, decision to publishand preparation of the published report. This requirementwould enhance the power of researchers when negotiatingwith funding bodies. It would also discourage researchersfrom accepting research contracts if they were unable topublish their findings in good journals. Editors could alsoexplore the option of requiring that all commissioned orfunded research be registered as a condition for subsequentreview, much as medical journals now do for clinical tri-als. This would provide a source of data on unpublishedstudies.
Finally, we should remember that governments, althoughvery powerful, are not the only interested parties who wouldlike to control research on drug policy. The field of drugs isa contentious one and there are many groups who would liketo control the research agenda. This includes users groupswho obviously do not have the power of governments andother funders but may, if given the right by government orethics committees, attempt to prevent research being donethat reflected adversely on their constituency. The same istrue of socially conservative members of ethics committeeswho take the view that socially disapproved of activities likeinjecting drug use should not be “condoned” by being thesubject of social research.
Reference
Miller, P., Moore, D., & Strang, J. (2006). The regulation of research byfunding bodies: an emerging ethical issue for the alcohol and otherdrug sector? International Journal of Drug Policy, 17(1), 12–16.
