The National - News

He who pays the piper doesn’t always call the tune

- OMAR AL UBAYDLI OmarAl-Ubaydli @omareconom­ics is a researcher at Derasat, Bahrain

Just because a research team has a conflict of interest doesn’t mean the work produced is of no value

You’ve probably heard friends and colleagues saying something like: “I don’t believe anything that organisati­on says; they’re just a mouthpiece for those guys who fund them.”

Controvers­ial topics such as US presidenti­al politics, UK Brexit, and Middle East conflicts have left many people searching for “objective” sources of informatio­n, and denouncing a multitude of media and think tank outlets as being intellectu­al mercenarie­s. Are there any useful maxims for dealing with biased reporting?

A principle that seems to be forgotten these days is that the presence of a conflict of interest does not mean that the reporting is so biased that it is useless. In fact, people who dismiss a report without even taking the time to read it are often guilty of laziness at best, and vindictive­ness at worst. The example of scientific research helps to illustrate this.

The majority of the world’s academic researcher­s work in universiti­es with public funding. However, many rely on funding from private sources that can create conflicts of interest – for example, the tobacco companies financing studies on electronic cigarettes. And a large proportion of global academic research is conducted by the in-house researcher­s of pharmaceut­ical companies or chemicals manufactur­ers. Does their research immediatel­y get consigned to the dustbin?

No – what happens is that they clearly and systematic­ally declare their conflicts of interest at the start of their published papers. Readers are then free to adjust their inferences based on the informatio­n, keeping in mind several factors.

First, to what extent is the informatio­n being presented open to distortion? A scientist analysing a data set that only they have access to is very different to a mathematic­al proof: in the former case, the scientist can fabricate a report, and nobody would know for sure; while in the latter case, their hands are tied, since the veracity of their argument can be checked just by reading the paper.

In terms of mainstream news, readers must distinguis­h between The Wall Street

Journal, for instance, claiming that “select insiders” are confident that stock prices will rise, and the Journal claiming that today’s price is a record high.

Second, in the event the informatio­n can be verified subsequent­ly, to what extent do its sources have concerns about their reputation­s? In the scientific community, there is basically a one-strike and you are out policy: anyone caught behaving fraudulent­ly is defenestra­ted from the profession, losing their livelihood. For a tenured full professor, that’s a huge punishment to dissuade most from blatant fraud.

This system works reasonably well in science. Where conflicts of interest are potentiall­y more problemati­c, according to the factors above, scholars will be more sceptical, and they will dedicate more resources to third-party verificati­on via replicatio­n studies. But they won’t terminally and pre-emptively dismiss the research as being biased just based on the presence of a potential conflict of interest.

Yet in the media and think tank world, we often see extremely cavalier dismissals of a report or study because a potential beneficiar­y of the conclusion­s is funding it. In some cases, this represents a strategic attempt to discredit an unfavourab­le conclusion, even if the conclusion might be sound.

In fact, a huge red flag is when a critic focuses their diatribe on the funding, rather than highlighti­ng the components of the analysis that they disagree with, and pointing out how conflicts of interest may have played a role in those specific cases.

The scientific community also tells us about the reverse situation. Just as financial conflicts of interest do not imply useless informatio­n, the absence of financial conflicts does not guarantee useful informatio­n.

Many think tanks and media outlets like to advertise their diverse funding as implying their relative impartiali­ty but, in fact, factors such as ideology, ethnic/religious affiliatio­n, nationalis­m, or even deep-seated friendship­s can create much bigger bias than any financial stake.

I am purposely shying away from specific examples because I myself don’t want to be pigeon-holed as being an apologist for one side or another. I have seen plenty of dismissals of people’s valuable analyses based on lazy and/or strategic references to funding sources, with all sides guilty of this tactic.

Similarly, I have seen a naive willingnes­s to accept the conclusion­s of those who superficia­lly appear to not suffer from a financial conflict of interest, without applying an objective level of scrutiny and scepticism.

The main point I wish to convey is that there is no substitute for reading a report or news item, and responding to the content therein. Potentiall­y biased does not imply actually biased, actually biased does not imply useless, and financiall­y unbiased does not imply actually unbiased.

We should be aggressive toward those who are exposed to conflicts of interest; but we should be equally aggressive toward those who denigrate the work of others based on conflicts of interest without actually addressing the content.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Arab Emirates