PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: It is well established that the tobacco industry used research funding as a deliberate tactic to subvert science. There has been little wider attention to how researchers think about accepting industry funding. We developed, then tested, hypotheses about two psychological constructs, namely, entitlement and conflict of interest contrarianism (CoI-C) among alcohol researchers who had previously received industry funding.
METHODS: A mixed-methods pilot study involved construct and instrument development, followed by an online survey and nested 3-arm randomised trial. We randomly allocated alcohol industry funding recipients to one of three conditions. In two experimental conditions we asked participants questions to remind them (and thus increase the salience) of their sense of entitlement or CoI-C. We compared these groups with a control group who did not receive any reminder. The outcome was a composite measure of openness to working with the alcohol industry.
RESULTS: 133 researchers were randomised of whom 79 completed the experiment. The posterior distribution over effect estimates revealed that there was a 94.8% probability that reminding researchers of their CoI-C led them to self-report being more receptive to industry funding, whereas the probability was 68.1% that reminding them of their sense of entitlement did so. Biomedical researchers reported being more open to working with industry than did psychosocial researchers.
CONCLUSIONS: Holding contrarian views on conflict of interest could make researchers more open to working with industry. This study shows how it is possible to study researcher decision-making using quantitative experimental methods.
METHODS: A mixed-methods pilot study involved construct and instrument development, followed by an online survey and nested 3-arm randomised trial. We randomly allocated alcohol industry funding recipients to one of three conditions. In two experimental conditions we asked participants questions to remind them (and thus increase the salience) of their sense of entitlement or CoI-C. We compared these groups with a control group who did not receive any reminder. The outcome was a composite measure of openness to working with the alcohol industry.
RESULTS: 133 researchers were randomised of whom 79 completed the experiment. The posterior distribution over effect estimates revealed that there was a 94.8% probability that reminding researchers of their CoI-C led them to self-report being more receptive to industry funding, whereas the probability was 68.1% that reminding them of their sense of entitlement did so. Biomedical researchers reported being more open to working with industry than did psychosocial researchers.
CONCLUSIONS: Holding contrarian views on conflict of interest could make researchers more open to working with industry. This study shows how it is possible to study researcher decision-making using quantitative experimental methods.
摘要：
背景：烟草业使用研究资金作为故意颠覆科学的策略是众所周知的。对于研究人员如何考虑接受行业资助，几乎没有得到更广泛的关注。我们开发了,然后测试，关于两种心理结构的假设，即,先前获得行业资助的酒精研究人员的权利和利益冲突逆反主义(CoI-C)。
方法：混合方法试验研究涉及结构和仪器开发，随后是一项在线调查和嵌套三臂随机试验。我们将酒精行业的资助对象随机分配到三个条件之一。在两个实验条件下，我们向参与者提问，以提醒他们（从而增加显著性）他们的权利感或CoI-C。我们将这些组与未收到任何提醒的对照组进行了比较。结果是对与酒精行业合作的开放性的综合衡量。
结果：133名研究人员被随机分配，其中79人完成了实验。效应估计的后验分布表明，有94.8％的可能性提醒研究人员他们的CoI-C导致他们自我报告更容易接受行业资助，而提醒他们权利感的概率为68.1%。据报道，生物医学研究人员比心理社会研究人员更愿意与工业界合作。
结论：对利益冲突持相反观点可能会使研究人员更愿意与行业合作。本研究显示了如何使用定量实验方法研究研究人员的决策。
方法：混合方法试验研究涉及结构和仪器开发，随后是一项在线调查和嵌套三臂随机试验。我们将酒精行业的资助对象随机分配到三个条件之一。在两个实验条件下，我们向参与者提问，以提醒他们（从而增加显著性）他们的权利感或CoI-C。我们将这些组与未收到任何提醒的对照组进行了比较。结果是对与酒精行业合作的开放性的综合衡量。
结果：133名研究人员被随机分配，其中79人完成了实验。效应估计的后验分布表明，有94.8％的可能性提醒研究人员他们的CoI-C导致他们自我报告更容易接受行业资助，而提醒他们权利感的概率为68.1%。据报道，生物医学研究人员比心理社会研究人员更愿意与工业界合作。
结论：对利益冲突持相反观点可能会使研究人员更愿意与行业合作。本研究显示了如何使用定量实验方法研究研究人员的决策。
