A recent article in The New York Times revealed that a principal investigator and an unnamed NIH official had met several times with members of the commercial alcohol industry to solicit funds for research support on moderate drinking. The PI described the trial design and suggested that the results would reflect well on moderate alcohol consumption.
A week earlier, an article reported on problems created by medical researchers publishing results that withheld or understated potential conflicts of interest. Topics such as these are unfortunate, especially in light of the widespread antiscience sentiment.
Science is a human endeavor. As such, conflicts of interest should be expected, especially if the topic is important. However, the NIH alcohol study gives the impression that prejudice was involved. I doubt it.
The NIH has responded with new regulations that make sure that the investigators, and not the funders, control the study design and data analysis. NIH also instituted an internal review of all research that has private donor support. These moves should catch the most blatant events.
However, in science, if the outcome of a study is suspicious and important, another scientist will almost certainly try to repeat it. If results are different, these will be highlighted and the debate will flourish. Soon, the preponderance of information will resolve the issues.
This is playing out now in the cannabis resurrection. Sure, it has taken 50 years of misinformation and politicized science to run its course. However, the future seems bright for medicinal cannabis and hemp fiber. Society is actively wrestling with recreational cannabis. With additional study, this issue will be clarified.
Unlike many other human endeavors, integrity in science is supported by the scientific method itself. It takes patience and money, but with time, the issues will be defined, evaluated, and disseminated.
Robert L. Stevenson, Ph.D., is Editor Emeritus, American Laboratory/Labcompare; e-mail: [email protected]