行业对公共卫生研究的赞助受到了越来越多的关注,and,因此,许多跨国公司(MNCs),如可口可乐公司和火星公司,致力于他们资助的资金的透明度,以及资助研究的结果。然而,这些跨国公司经常资助慈善机构,国家和国际,然后支持研究,并向领导者推广行业有利的政策立场。我们探讨一个行业是否资助慈善机构,国际生命科学研究所(ILSI),是科学目标,非游说者,它认为它是国际可信的机构,以帮助国际卫生界和科学界判断ILSI的产出。
2015年6月至2018年2月,美国知情权),一个非营利性消费者和公共卫生组织,提交了五个美国州信息自由请求(FOI),以探索ILSI与行业的接触,政策制定者,和/或研究人员,共获得17163页的分析。两名研究人员研究了这些文件,以根据其所谓的目标评估ILSI的活动和行为。
在收到的文件中,我们确定了ILSI试图影响研究的实例,会议,公共信息,和政策,包括对ILSI机构未能促进行业有利信息的惩罚实例。我们确定了ILSI与国家和国际机构一起促进其议程,以影响政策和法律,导致世界卫生组织退出与它现在认为是私营部门实体的官方关系。
ILSI试图影响个人,职位,和政策,在国内和国际上,其公司成员将其作为促进全球利益的工具。我们对ILSI的分析提醒那些参与全球卫生治理的人警惕假定的独立研究小组,并在依赖他们资助的研究和/或参与与这些团体的关系之前进行尽职调查。
Industry sponsorship of public health research has received increasing scrutiny, and, as a result, many multinational corporations (MNCs), such as The Coca-Cola Company and Mars Inc., have committed to transparency with regard to what they fund, and the findings of funded research. However, these MNCs often fund
charities, both national and international, which then support research and promote industry-favourable policy positions to leaders. We explore whether one industry funded charity, the International Life Sciences Institute (\'ILSI\'), is the scientifically objective, non-lobby, internationally-credible body that it suggests it is, so as to aid the international health and scientific communities to judge ILSI\'s outputs.
Between June 2015 and February 2018, U.S. Right to Know), a non-profit consumer and public health group, submitted five U.S. state Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) to explore ILSI engagement with industry, policy makers, and/or researchers, which garnered a total of 17,163 pages for analysis. Two researchers explored these documents to assess the activities and conduct of ILSI against its purported objectives.
Within the received documents we identified instances of ILSI seeking to influence research, conferences, public messages, and policy, including instances of punishments for ILSI bodies failing to promote industry-favourable messaging. We identified ILSI promoting its agenda with national and international bodies to influence policy and law, causing the World Health Organization to withdraw from official relations with what it now considers a private sector entity.
ILSI seeks to influence individuals, positions, and policy, both nationally and internationally, and its corporate members deploy it as a tool to promote their interests globally. Our analysis of ILSI serves as a caution to those involved in global health governance to be wary of putatively independent research groups, and to practice due diligence before relying upon their funded studies and/or engaging in relationship with such groups.