The podcast dives into the murky waters of financial conflicts of interest in scientific research. It highlights how funding sources can dramatically sway research outcomes, especially in the pharmaceutical sector. Discussions touch on transparency and the ethics of researchers who profit from public speaking related to their work. The hosts humorously envision scenarios where moneyed interests play puppet master to scientific integrity. The critical need for clearer COI disclosures is emphasized, urging a reevaluation of standards in academia.
01:07:21
forum Ask episode
web_stories AI Snips
view_agenda Chapters
menu_book Books
auto_awesome Transcript
info_circle Episode notes
insights INSIGHT
Financial Conflicts of Interest
Researchers often face conflicts of interest due to financial incentives from companies.
This can lead to biased research outcomes favoring the funders' products.
insights INSIGHT
Industry Funding and Positive Results
Industry-funded studies are more likely to show positive outcomes for the products being researched.
A meta-analysis found that interventions appeared two to three times more powerful in for-profit studies.
insights INSIGHT
Surrogate Outcomes and Bias
Surrogate outcomes are easier to manipulate than clinical outcomes in research.
For-profit studies using surrogate outcomes are seven times more likely to yield positive results.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood
Jean Twenge
In 'iGen,' Jean Twenge analyzes the cultural changes affecting today's teens and young adults, born after 1995, who are the first generation to spend their entire adolescence in the age of smartphones. The book draws from nationally representative surveys and in-depth interviews to document how technology has influenced their socialization, mental health, attitudes toward religion, sexuality, and politics. Twenge argues that this generation is distinct due to their extensive use of technology, which has led to increased levels of anxiety, depression, and loneliness, as well as changes in their developmental pace and social interactions. The book is divided into chapters that explore various themes, including the impact of internet use, changes in social behaviors, mental health crises, and shifts in religious and political attitudes.
The better angels of our nature
Why Violence Has Declined
Steven Pinker
In this book, Steven Pinker presents a detailed argument that violence has significantly decreased over the course of human history. He uses extensive data and statistical analysis to demonstrate this decline in various domains, including military conflict, homicide, genocide, torture, and the treatment of children, homosexuals, animals, and racial and ethnic minorities. Pinker identifies four key human motivations – empathy, self-control, the moral sense, and reason – as the 'better angels' that have oriented humans away from violence and towards cooperation and altruism. He also discusses historical forces such as the rise of the state (which he terms 'Leviathan'), the spread of commerce, the growth of feminist values, and the expansion of cosmopolitanism, which have contributed to this decline in violence[1][4][5].
The Blank Slate
Steven Pinker
Bad Science
Ben Goldacre
In 'Bad Science,' Ben Goldacre critiques the current state of science as presented to the public, focusing on the misrepresentation of science by the media, the flaws in alternative therapies, and the misleading practices of pharmaceutical companies. The book explains basic scientific principles, such as the placebo effect, regression to the mean, and the importance of randomized and double-blinded trials. Goldacre also discusses cognitive biases, the role of media in promoting public misunderstanding of science, and the ethical issues in drug development and advertising. Written in an engaging and humorous style, the book aims to help readers differentiate between good and bad science practices.
Presence
Amy Cuddy
We want scientists to be paragons of objectivity. At the very least, we want them to tell us who’s paying their bills. But it turns out that in some fields of research, the norms about reporting financial conflicts of interest are all over the place. Scientists making big money from after-dinner speeches about their research often don’t think it’s at all relevant to disclose.
In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the evidence on how funding affects the outcomes of scientific research—and discuss whether scientists need to be a lot more transparent about where their money comes from.
Show notes
* 2017 meta-analysis of the impact of funding source (for-profit vs. non-profit) on medical randomised trials
* Tom’s Nature article on undisclosed financial conflicts in psychology research
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe
The Studies Show 
