Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts

by Carol Tavris

Another way to measure the subtle effects of sponsorship is by comparing the results of studies funded independently and those funded by industry, which consistently reveal a funding bias. Two investigators selected 161 studies, all published during the same six-year span, of the possible risks to human health of four chemicals. Of the studies funded by industry, only 14 percent found harmful effects on health; of those funded independently, fully 60 percent found harmful effects.16 A researcher examined more than 100 controlled clinical trials designed to determine the effectiveness of a new medication over older ones. Of those favoring the traditional drug, 13 percent had been funded by drug companies and 87 percent by nonprofit institutions.17 Two Danish investigators examined 159 clinical trials that had been published between 1997 and 2001 in the British Medical Journal, where authors are required to declare potential conflicts of interest. The researchers could therefore compare studies in which the investigators had declared a conflict of interest with those in which there was none. The findings were “significantly more positive toward the experimental intervention” (i.e., the new drug compared to an older one) when the study had been funded by a for-profit organization.18 If most of the scientists funded by industry are not consciously cheating, what is causing the funding bias? Clinical trials of new drugs are complicated by many factors, including length of treat...