The Commodification of Science in the Sugar Industry

Introduction

Financial support for science, technology, and innovation is becoming increasingly relevant and changing its meaning. There are also the latest, complex funding mechanisms that are designed to influence the conduct of scientific research. When discussing the applied nature of some scientific research, it frequently refers to business involvement in the financing of science. There are still a small number of companies investing in science, creating units responsible for research and development, and placing orders for scientific investigation. Science and business have long been interconnected institutions. Therefore, scientists work on disruptive technologies and new advances, and business often sponsors this forward movement and organizes scientific prizes and acceleration centers.

This is not a temporary advantage, which is provided, for instance, by marketing campaigns, but a large-scale strategy for the long term. At the same time, major technology companies today know how to resolve simple problems on their own. The business contacts scientists when it cannot or does not consider it profitable to address the issue within its own structure. This class of challenges can be described as rocket science: such work requires large steep teams, training, new laboratories, and investment in equipment. In these cases, it is more profitable for businesses to invest in science. Research offers the company a competitive advantage, which means that the business turns to it exclusively to solve practical problems. Thus, the question point is that private funding can shape the way academic research is conducted and is one of the reasons for the commodification of science. Executives at large companies are interested in conducting academic studies before introducing a new outcome to customers. Accordingly, it is essential to establish how private funding affects the commodification of science and consider this with the example of the sugar industry.

The Literature Review

Academics argue that the advancement of science is due to the close interaction between sponsors and researchers. They trace the stages of such collaboration and prove that the Internet and digital communication positively influence the exchange of a lot of data necessary for scientific research. At the same time, the authors focus on the strategies and values pursued by private and public funders. They conclude that public financing of science contributes to its development and progress, while private sponsorship is aimed more at benefiting companies.¹ The scholar observed that critics often view science as commercial and a commodity to be traded. He argues that this is due to private investment in science, which is needed to promote the economy.

Although this frequently affects the perception of science as fraudulent and not valid for scientific research, the confidence of ordinary people in it declines accordingly. At the same time, the author views the commodification of science as an economic endowment that is a natural aspect of the market economy. He maintains that the social use of science contributes to the evolution of society.² According to Marcos Barbosa De Oliveira’s article, which is part of a research project, the commodification of science is interpreted as the possible spread of the popularity of science and its advancement, that is, neoliberalism. It argues that, despite popular opinion, science is not a commodity but a social tool for the dissemination of a product.³. In order to use science profitably, reform is needed to diminish the harmful effects of commodification.

Manuela Fernández Pinto mentions that there are cases of scientific fraud and insufficient research due to legal restrictions concerning intellectual property. Thus, the funding of science by industry has a negative impact on people’s perception of its validity. The shortage of government funding facilitates additional financing from private investors; accordingly, the openness of science promotes its commercialization.⁴ Radder notes that the commodification of academic research is a complex phenomenon; in the narrow sense, commodification is identified with commercialization; in the broad sense, academic commodification is part of social evolution. The author maintains that this phenomenon must be considered holistically, and different factors need to be addressed.

Accordingly, he argues that all types of academic research should be evaluated based on economic criteria. At the same time, for the sufficiency of scientific research, it is required to involve a large number of specialists and representatives of different disciplines.⁵ The author observes that additional funding enhances the quality of the result obtained, which is a positive phenomenon. It is essential to include a study describing a Foundation Sugar Research Foundation review in the New England Journal of Medicine that rejected evidence linking sucrose intake to blood lipid levels.⁶ The authors examined the purpose of the funding, structure, and steps. Significantly, the negative health effects of sugar influenced the closure of the project. Therefore, this explains the dependence of scientific discoveries on funding.⁷ As a consequence, Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to research funded by the food industry.

Under the Nestle article, all studies, nevertheless of industry-sponsored by private investors, may show different results if their variables are the same. This is because certain sponsors can influence the research process, most often by affecting the interpretation of the data. However, investors usually sign documents where they note that they do not take any role in the research other than funding⁸. The author examines cases of research investment and observes that there are cases of misuse of the financing for research projects in the food industry.

Researchers note that there is no systematic study that has consistently described the impact of sponsoring on research in the nutritional industry. They found that funding for nutrition-related research articles can skew conclusions in favor of sponsors’ products, which can have significant public health implications. Although the authors note that the grant also supported their research, it did not affect the collection and interpretation of the results. Accordingly, the researchers allow for the possibility of falsification of the study results. ⁹ Still, they do not specify that there is any way to reduce the risks of sponsors’ power on the publication of the articles.

Krimsky states that the public is concerned about conflicts of interest caused by sponsorship in biomedical science and medical practice. Therefore, there are ethical problems and loss of credibility of research, but there are ways to solve them. This includes, for example, attracting multiple sources of funding or expanding the transparency of studies.¹⁰ Thus, these actions aim to restore trust in scientific research and the commodification of science.

The Commodification of Science

There are two definitions commonly used to explain science commodification. If only the narrow meaning is considered, commodification is closely related to commercialization, which manifests itself in the desire of researchers and organizations engaged in science to make a profit. Such returns can be made through commissioning research to be performed by the organization’s staff or by selling expertise already held by the scientist or institution.¹¹ This explanation of the phenomenon is relevant because it covers the commercial aspect of commodification and highlights the significant role of scientific organizations or individual researchers in the process.

It is important to note that the commodification of science is also viewed in a broader sense. That is, it is understood as comprehensive and long-term social development. Like the previous definition, it also uses an economic tool, but it is intended to affect people and society. Thus, it becomes clear that academic commodification means that types of scientific activity and its results are predominantly interpreted and evaluated based on economic criteria.¹²At the same time, it should be emphasized that commodification does not consist only of economic parts but implies their leading role.

It should be stressed that the term academic commodification also requires clarification from the academic community’s perspective. Academics means understanding those universities that public tax funds fully or primarily fund. Although, this explanation does not provide a detailed answer and is too narrow. Nowadays, one needs to supplement public funding with basic research and scholarship provided by private investors and donors. Interestingly, the shift in priorities of considering science not as research but as a commodity is explained broadly. For example, researchers often understand it as corruption, conflicts of interest, or even fraud. ¹³At the same time, commodification is closely related to the free market and commercialization, which involves technology transfer, patenting, and other characteristics. Therefore, this affects the complexity of scientific commodification and its ambiguous explanation.

It is important to remember that the development of science in general and its commodification are influenced by technological progress. It facilitates the exchange of information and has come to stifle scientific research. Moreover, the Internet and the rapid exchange of big data enable the search for private sponsors for study. Thus, most current projects are funded by large corporations, which is why the problem of negative commodification of science arises. Moreover, it should be noted that scientists emphasize conducting research through the provision of public funds.¹⁴ This is because it is precisely this commodification of science that is justified and designed to mark answers to questions significant to the industry.¹⁵ At the same time, as a provider of tools, as opposed to scientists, it is motivated by the instrumental value of science, not by the donors’ economic interests.

Therefore, it needs to be remarked that commodity production, which expends human labor to produce objects or services for sale, certainly existed even before capitalism. However, under capitalism, the marketable form of economic activity became increasingly pervasive in all aspects of human life. Consequently, the commodification of science is not a unique transformation but an integral part of capitalist development. Commodification also means a huge step in the development of abstract thinking. The commodification becomes more profound when investors can invest their money in those companies that promise the most significant benefits.¹⁶ Hence, company executives turn to scientific research to foresee profitability or other factors that may affect the business.

Thus, investors finance the research they need to justify their products or services’ profitability, safety, or validity. Accordingly, public and private funding of research projects contributes to the commodification of science. Scientists have become scientific personnel; as such, they are interchangeable, subject to the costs of production and managerial control. The division of labor in science and the creation of specialties and titles are progressively rationalized. ¹⁷ The creative side of scientific work is growing the privilege of a small fraction of employed scientists while the others are increasingly proletarianized.

Private Funding

The expansion of globalization extends the role of science in the development of the economy and international competition. Without the direct influence of science, it is not only impossible to advance but also to manage the modern economy. Science has been a critical factor in the evolution of the economy for more than two hundred years. However, science, similarly to other sectors of the economy, cannot progress without funding. The financing of science or academic research is a problem that is extremely difficult for every country. The main challenge is the question of who should finance academic studies. Everyone is interested in the development of science, including the state, business structures, the population, individuals, and civil society. Nonetheless, among these above, there are only two primary ones, that is, the state and business structures that have the finances to invest in scientific research. Therefore, funding is the allocation of funds or resources to achieve the intended objectives. ¹⁸Accordingly, private finance of science indicates that individuals or companies financially support and sponsor certain types of investigations that are within their field of interest.

It is significant to emphasize that a large amount of scientific research has recently been conducted in the private sector. This has certain advantages; for example, a large number of funds for studies can be obtained in a relatively short time. Resources directed to scientific research are of an investment nature; therefore, it is impossible to secure large volumes of resources and use these funds efficiently without the extensive involvement of the private sector. Consequently, this leads to intensive work by scientists and contributes to the plausibility of a new scientific discovery. Indeed, private financing enables researchers to provide the latest work and materials instruments. Nevertheless, negative factors increasingly arise with private funding of scientific projects.¹⁹ For example, there is an assumption that privately sponsored research negatively affects scientists. Academics who are highly paid may fabricate the result of scientific research to fit the sponsors’ desires. Hence, it is a falsified outcome without scientific value or quality. At the same time, publishing such a study will contribute to deceiving ordinary people who will buy the product because of the positive test results.

Thus, the commercialization of science is considered a significant threat to scientific rationality because it probably threatens the normative standards of the scientific enterprise. Recently, the attention of public advocates has been focused on private funding because a growing number of scandals have been reported. For example, there was hidden harm from smoking in the Vioxx case, and a private company funded the study. Therefore, private financing encourages funders to want the outcomes, not the truthful ones. It is significant to mention that when research is privately funded, there may be a financial conflict of interest.

Consequently, design bias and unreliability of publications on the research topic are identified. Moreover, recent meta-analyses suggest that industry bias can affect the outcomes of investigations, even when standardized statistical instruments assess the quality of the research. ²⁰Although these data focus on medical research, conflicts of interest have also been recognized as deeply problematic for scientific research in general.

Another aspect to consider when funding research is intellectual property rights. For example, the precise regulation and protection of patent law can be an obstacle to conducting a research project. This is because intellectual property rights provide private companies with control of the research they sponsor. As a consequence, such influence leads to the concealment of socially significant research results and the restriction of scientific exploration initiatives.²¹ Hence, it can be noted that research sponsored by private investors raises many questions about its quality and validity.

Furthermore, the concealment of authentic results can cause damage to people and the environment, as has been the case in the tobacco industry. These concerns become even more prominent considering that most research today is funded and performed in the private sector. It is essential to mention that recent figures show that “72% of R&D in the U.S. is done in the business sector, and the business sector funds 67%”. ²² The primary source of research funding in developed countries is private businesses. Accordingly, private investment is the principal in the science industry and has positive and negative effects on it. Private financing of scientific research responds positively to the liberalization of the economy and provides researchers with many tools and opportunities for study. At the same time, it generates many debates about the outputs’ accuracy and validity.

The Sugar Industry

It is significant to mention that funding for scientific nutrition research is as popular as the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. Scientific projects frequently have implications for consumer perceptions of products. It should be noted that scientific research on the same issue can reach different conclusions. However, considerable evidence suggests that these fields have deliberately influenced the design, results, and interpretation of the research they have paid into the pharmaceutical industries.²³ Nevertheless, there is no significant evidence about the influence of investors on sugar industry research.

Moreover, sponsorship documents indicate that investors do not influence scientific studies. However, there is proof of such impact on academic research. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, the Sugar Trade Association not only sponsored but also initiated and impacted research to exclude sugar as a significant risk factor for coronary heart disease. ²⁴ These cases concerned the fact that findings demonstrated the effect of sugar on the risk of developing heart disease.

There is evidence that the association changed the study design and suggested consideration of dietary fats and cholesterol. The redesign of the study was supported by additional payment to scientists, more than $48,000 to three nutrition professors at Harvard. Accordingly, a review was published that refuted the connection between heart disease and the effect of sugar on it. Thus, proof exists that the sugar industry is funding research that should produce the desired outcomes. From this example, it is clear that the scientist’s article was about more saturated fats than sugar. It is worth noting that there is no definitive evidence of whether the additional funding affected their results, which is bribery, or whether they chose to reward the sponsors themselves.²⁵ Independent of the scientists’ motives, their conclusions have negative implications for science.

It should be mentioned that the use of science is designed to influence consumers, not to provide genuine scientific testimony. Accordingly, private funding of research in the sugar industry is intended in large part to manipulate clients. Further demonstration of this is the case of Coca-Cola, the letters made public explaining the private relationships of sponsors and researchers. They were focused on conducting studies that concluded that the drink’s effect on obesity was minimal. ²⁶Therefore, private financing impacted the outcome of the study in order to reduce the adverse effects of sugar on human health.

The commodification of science is entrenched in modern academia, especially in the sugar industry. It is worth mentioning that the Associated Press has been informed that the candy trade association has funded and influenced studies that show that children who eat candy have a higher body weight than those who do not. Other scientific studies, on the contrary, find negative associations between obesity and eating foods containing sugar. Consequently, it can be deduced that the sugar industry’s private funding of scientific research impacts the commodification of science. The results of such a study have consequences for public health, primarily if the outcomes of scientific projects are based only on the needs of the sponsors. ²⁷ The society of science explains why the food industry actively funds scientific projects and engages scholars to promote their products.

The commodification of science caused by private funding does not always have a negative outcome. For instance, Project 259 connects sucrose intake with cancer and is funded by private donors. Scientists have found that beta-glucuronidase has an effect on the development of bladder cancer. Therefore, the published study demonstrates that the consumption of sugar and sucrose has an impact on metabolic effects.²⁸ Consequently, the public has received truthful and valid information on an under-researched problem. This case illustrates that private investment in science can instigate its development. Thus, these examples relate to the commodification of science, but this is not the central concern. Private funding of science can promote it and conceal genuine data in the sugar industry. In order to minimize the harmful effects of the commodification of science, it is imperative to increase control over the transparency of research.

The Impact of Private Funding and Implications for Science

It is important to note that the cases discussed above indicate that private funding is often attracted to research in the sugar industry. Investors fund investigations on the effects of sugary drinks and other products on the human body. On the one hand, the attraction of private financing has a positive effect on the development of science, but on the other hand, there can be negative consequences. For example, substantial funds allow research on urgent problems to be conducted quickly and solutions to them to be identified. At the same time, private science funding stimulates new inventions in various fields, especially pharmaceuticals. It should be noted that the concept of conflict of interest covers certain threats. In the cases cited, one can observe how private finance has adversely affected the quality of research. Independent of whether the sponsors offer specific guidance on study design, sampling, or results, there is a risk of falsification of the outcome. ²⁹ That is because scientists often endeavor to reach the conclusions that their sponsors demand, even if they have not been instructed to do it.

This is because private research grants are directed at issues that are significant to the company. Accordingly, scientists who receive research grants do not want to reach and demonstrate results that might negatively affect the source of their funding. However, it is also possible for sponsors to control the stages of research. For instance, they change the research questions, conditions, and design to obtain scientific proof of the human health benefits of their products. Thus, they can delay the publication of data that negatively affects the company’s image. Consequently, falsification or concealment of results occurs; due to the fact that the sugar industry attempts to explain the effects of sugar on human health, hiding accurate results can have a negative influence on humans. ³⁰ Therefore, the interpretation of scientific studies concerning the source of funding further leads to a decrease in the credibility of science

Once the studies demonstrate the impact of private funding on science has been conducted, the question of ethical implications arises. In order to restore trust in science, it is necessary to ensure that the research is transparent and that the sponsors are published publicly. This will permit the target audience to evaluate the results of the research and decide on its authenticity. At the same time, for science to be objective even when commoditized, evidence of the validity and reliability of project results must be provided. Hence, even with private funding, science will not become a collection of falsified studies. ³¹ Otherwise, the influence of conflicts of interest will have an adverse effect not only on the credibility of science but also on its value.

Conclusion

Scientific research requires support for conducting scientific research revealing results. In this case, there is already a private interest, which is manifested in the involvement of not only public but also non-public funds in the process of funding applied research. Hence, questions arise about the commodification of science and its impact on science. This is because private sponsors fund only those projects that relate to their sphere of interest. For example, the sugar industry supports research on the effects of sugar on the human body. Accordingly, there are cases where sponsors affect the validity and truthfulness of the results. However, private funding has a positive effect on the development of science if non-interference rules for researchers are followed. In this way, it is imperative to create rules that are enforced by private investors and researchers.

Thus, future research must consider research transparency and sponsors’ involvement. At the same time, an essential recommendation for future projects is to develop workable rules that government agencies will monitor. This will minimize the negative impact of the commodification of science. Another recommendation is a study of the credibility of science following the disclosure of data on the falsification of research results. This will make it possible to determine the level of trust in science and search for ways to enhance credibility. It is also essential to examine the conditions of scientific research that raise doubts about the authenticity of the outcome. This will highlight the key points that need to be addressed. In this way, future research can address the problems posed by the commodification of science.

Bibliography

De Oliveira, Marcos Barbosa. “On the Commodification of Science: The Programmatic Dimension.” Science & Education 22, no. 10 (2013): 2463-2483.

Fernández Pinto, Manuela. “Open Science for Private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to The Commercialization of Research.” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5, (2020): 1-10.

Kearns, Cristin, Dorie Apollonio, and Stanton Glantz. “Sugar Industry Sponsorship of Germ-Free Rodent Studies Linking Sucrose to Hyperlipidemia and Cancer: Fn Historical Fnalysis of Internal Documents.” PLoS Biology 15, no. 11 (2017): e2003460.

Kearns, Cristin, Laura Schmidt, and Stanton Glantz. “Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents.” JAMA Internal Medicine 176, no.11 (2016): 1680-1685.

Krimsky, Sheldon. “Combating The Funding Effect in Science: What’s Beyond Transparency.” Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev 21: (2010): 101-123.

Lesser, Lenard, Cara Ebbeling, Merrill Goozner, David Wypij and David Ludwig. “Relationship Between Funding Source and Conclusion Among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles.” PLoS Medicine 4, no. 1 (2007): e5.

Nestle, Marion. “Food Industry Funding of Nutrition Research: The Relevance of History for Current Debates.” JAMA Internal Medicine 176, no.11 (2016): 1685-1686.

Nordmann, Alfred, Hans Radder, and Gregor Schiemann. Science Transformed?: Debating Claims of An Epochal Break. Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011

Radder, Hans. The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and The Modern University. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010.

Vermeir, Koen. “Scientific Research: Commodities or Commons?.” Science & Education 22, no. 10 (2013): 2485-2510.

Footnotes

• 1 Alfred Nordmann, Hans Radder and Gregor Schiemann, Science Transformed?: Debating Claims of An Epochal Break (Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011), 2.
• 2 Koen Vermeir, “Scientific Research: Commodities or Commons?,” Science & Education 22, no. 10 (2013): 2485.
• 3 Marcos Barbosa De Oliveira, “On the Commodification of Science: The Programmatic Dimension,” Science & Education 22, no. 10 (2013): 2463.
• 4 Manuela Fernández Pinto, “Open Science for Private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to The Commercialization of Research,” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5, (2020): 7.
• 5 Hans Radder, The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and The Modern University (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), 2.
• 6 Cristin Kearns, Dorie Apollonio, and Stanton Glantz, “Sugar Industry Sponsorship of Germ-Free Rodent Studies Linking Sucrose to Hyperlipidemia and Cancer: Fn Historical Fnalysis of Internal Documents,” PLoS Biology 15, no. 11 (2017): e2003460.
• 7 Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt, and Stanton Glantz, “Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents,” JAMA internal medicine 176, no.11 (2016): 1680.
• 8 Marion Nestle, “Food Industry Funding of Nutrition Research: The Relevance of History for Current Debates,” JAMA internal medicine 176, no.11 (2016): 1685.
• 9 Lenard Lesser, Cara Ebbeling, Merrill Goozner, David Wypij and David Ludwig, “Relationship Between Funding Source and Conclusion Among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles,” PLoS Medicine 4, no. 1 (2007): e5.
• 10 Sheldon Krimsky, “Combating The Funding Effect in Science: What’s Beyond Transparency,” Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev 21: (2010): 101.
• 11 Hans Radder, The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and The Modern University (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), 5.
• 12 Hans Radder, The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and The Modern University (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), 6.
• 13 Koen Vermeir, “Scientific Research: Commodities or Commons?,” Science & Education 22, no. 10 (2013): 2485.
• 14 Alfred Nordmann, Hans Radder and Gregor Schiemann, Science Transformed?: Debating Claims of An Epochal Break (Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011), 4.
• 15 Marcos Barbosa De Oliveira, “On the Commodification of Science: The Programmatic Dimension,” Science & Education 22, no. 10 (2013): 2468.
• 16 Hans Radder, The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and The Modern University (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), 6.
• 17 Manuela Fernández Pinto, “Open Science for Private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to The Commercialization of Research,” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5, (2020): 8.
• 18 Manuela Fernández Pinto, “Open Science for Private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to The Commercialization of Research,” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5, (2020): 6.
• 19 Manuela Fernández Pinto, “Open Science for Private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to The Commercialization of Research,” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5, (2020): 7.
• 20 Manuela Fernández Pinto, “Open Science for Private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to The Commercialization of Research,” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5, (2020): 7.
• 21 Manuela Fernández Pinto, “Open Science for Private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to The Commercialization of Research,” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5, (2020): 8.
• 22 Manuela Fernández Pinto, “Open Science for Private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to The Commercialization of Research,” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5, (2020): 7.
• 23 Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt, and Stanton Glantz, “Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents,” JAMA internal medicine 176, no.11 (2016): 1680.
• 24 Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt, and Stanton Glantz, “Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents,” JAMA internal medicine 176, no.11 (2016): 1681.
• 25 Cristin Kearns, Dorie Apollonio, and Stanton Glantz, “Sugar Industry Sponsorship of Germ-Free Rodent Studies Linking Sucrose to Hyperlipidemia and Cancer: Fn Historical Fnalysis of Internal Documents,” PLoS Biology 15, no. 11 (2017): e2003460.
• 26 Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt, and Stanton Glantz, “Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents,” JAMA internal medicine 176, no.11 (2016): 1683.
• 27 Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt, and Stanton Glantz, “Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents,” JAMA internal medicine 176, no.11 (2016): 1684.
• 28 Marion Nestle, “Food Industry Funding of Nutrition Research: The Relevance of History for Current Debates,” JAMA internal medicine 176, no.11 (2016): 1685.
• 29 Lenard Lesser, Cara Ebbeling, Merrill Goozner, David Wypij and David Ludwig, “Relationship Between Funding Source and Conclusion Among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles,” PLoS Medicine 4, no. 1 (2007): e5.
• 30 Lenard Lesser, Cara Ebbeling, Merrill Goozner, David Wypij and David Ludwig, “Relationship Between Funding Source and Conclusion Among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles,” PLoS Medicine 4, no. 1 (2007): e5.
• 31 Sheldon Krimsky, “Combating The Funding Effect in Science: What’s Beyond Transparency,” Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev 21: (2010): 107.