Minerva

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 217–236 | Cite as

‘We Have to Go Where the Money Is’—Dilemmas in the Role of Nutrition Scientists: An Interview Study

Article

Abstract

In Western societies scientists are increasingly expected to seek media exposure and cooperate with industry. Little attention has been given to the way such expectations affect the role of scientific experts in society. To investigate scientists’ own perspectives on these issues eight exploratory, in-depth interviews were conducted in Denmark with reputable nutrition scientists. Additionally, eight interviews were held with ‘key informants’ from the field of nutrition policy. It was found that nutrition scientists experience two dilemmas: first, between their aspiration to make a collective impact on public health and the powerful incentives of each to appear frequently in the media with new messages; second, between their need to cooperate with the food industry for financial reasons and their fear that this may compromise their independence and scientific integrity. It is argued that the dilemmas identified in this study should be dealt with openly by the relevant groups of scientists.

Keywords

Independence Integrity Credibility Public role Nutrition experts Qualitative methodology 

References

  1. Als-Nielsen, Bodil, Wendong Chen, Christian Gluud, and Lise L. Kjaergard. 2003. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials. A reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290(7): 921–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angell, Marcia. 2000. Is academic medicine for sale? The New England Journal of Medicine 342(2): 1516–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnoldi, Jakob. 2007. Universities and the public recognition of expertise. Minerva 45(1): 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bekelman, Justin E., Yan Li, and Cary P. Gross. 2003. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. A systematic review. JAMA 289(4): 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackburn, Simon. 1999. Is objective moral justification possible on a quasi-realist foundation? Inquiry 42(2): 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumenthal, David. 2003. Academic–industrial relationships in the life sciences. New England Journal of Medicine 349(25): 2452–2459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodenheimer, Thomas. 2000. Uneasy alliance. Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. New England Journal of Medicine 342(20): 1539–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchanan, James M. 1965. An economic theory of clubs. Economica 32: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, Harry M., and Robert Evans. 2006. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. In The philosophy of expertise, ed. Evan Selinger, and Robert P. Crease, 39–110. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crabtree, Benjamin F., and William L. Miller. 1999. Using codes and code manuals: A template organizing style of interpretation. In Doing qualitative research, ed. Benjamin F. Crabtree, and William L. Miller, 163–178. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Danmarks Statistik. 2008. Forskning og udviklingsarbejde i den offentlige sektor. Forskningsstatistik 2006. Danmarks Statistik. http://www.dst.dk/upload/rettet_11082008_forskning_og_udviklingsarbejde_2006__001.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2009.
  12. Delaney, Kevin J. 2007. Methodological dilemmas and opportunities in interviewing organizational elites. Sociology Compass 1(1): 208–221. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00028.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Folker, Anna Paldam, and Peter Sandøe. 2008. Leaping “out of the doubt”–Nutrition advice: Values at stake in communicating scientific uncertainty to the public. Health Care Analysis 16: 176–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Folker, Anna Paldam, Hanne Andersen, and Peter Sandøe. 2008. Implicit normativity in scientific advice. An analysis of values in nutrition advice to the general public. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 51(2): 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbons, Michael. 1999. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402(Suppl 2): C81–C84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilchrist, Valerie J., and Robert L. Williams. 1999. Key informant interviews. In Doing qualitative research, ed. Benjamin F. Crabtree, and William L. Miller, 71–88. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1998. Commentary improving public understanding: Guidelines for communicating emerging science on nutrition, food safety, and health. For journalists, scientists, and other communicators. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 90(3): 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Katan, Martijn B. 2007. Does industry sponsorship undermine the integrity of nutrition research? PloS Med 4(1): 3–4. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King, Nigel. 2004. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, ed. Catherine Cassell, and Gillian Symon, 256–270. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Kitcher, Philip. 2004. On the autonomy of the sciences. Philosophy Today 48(5): 51–57.Google Scholar
  22. Kvale, Steinar. 1996. Inter views. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Lesser, Lenard I., Cara B. Ebbeling, Merrill Goozner, David Wypij, and David S. Ludwig. 2007. Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med 4(1): 41–46. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levine, Jane, Joan Dye Gussow, Diane Hastings, and Amy Eccher. 2003. Authors’ financial relationships with the food and beverage industry and their published positions on the fat substitute olestra. American Journal of Public Health 93(4): 664–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lexchin, Joel, Lisa A. Bero, Benjamin Djulbegovic, and Otavio Clark. 2003. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ 326: 1167–1170. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lupton, Deborah. 1996. Food, the body and the self. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 2005. What’s new in scientific advice to politics? In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, ed. Sabine Maasen, Peter Weingart, and Peter Weingart, 1–19. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Merton, Robert K. 1973. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. Robert K. Merton, and Norman W. Storer, 267–278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Meyer, Gitte. 2006. Journalism and science: How to erode the idea of knowledge. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19(3): 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller, Gregory D., Nancy L. Cohen, Victor L. Fulgoni, Steven B. Heymsfield, and Nancy S. Wellman. 2006. From nutrition scientist to nutrition communicator: Why you should take the leap. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 83(6): 1272–1275.Google Scholar
  31. Morgen, Mandag. 2006. Jagten på det troværdige universitet. København: Huset Mandag Morgen A/S.Google Scholar
  32. Nestle, Marion. 2001. Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: A conflict of interest? Public Health Nutrition 4(5): 1015–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nestle, Marion. 2002. Food politics. How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rensberger, Boyce. 2000. Why scientists should cooperate with journalists. Science and Engineering Ethics 6(4): 549–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schorett, Peter, Paul Rabinow, and Paul R. Billings. 2003. The changing norms of the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology 21(2): 123–125. doi:10.1038/nbt0203-123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schulz, Winfried. 1997. Changes of mass media and the public sphere. Javnost - The Public 4(2): 57–69.Google Scholar
  37. Selinger, Evan, and Robert P. Crease (eds.). 2006. The philosophy of expertise. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Turner, Stephen P. 2003. Liberal democracy 3.0. Civil society in an age of experts. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Vorster, Hester. 2001. Sponsorship of nutrition research in developing countries. Public Health Nutrition 4(5): 1023–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wald, Andreas. 2007. Effects of “Mode 2”-related policy on the research process: The case of publicly funded German nanotechnology. Science Studies 20(1): 26–51.Google Scholar
  41. Weingart, Peter. 1997. From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information 36(4): 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Young, Nathan, and Ralph Matthews. 2007. Experts’ understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Understanding of Science 16(2): 123–144.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Paldam Folker
    • 1
  • Lotte Holm
    • 2
  • Peter Sandøe
    • 1
  1. 1.Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Faculty of Life ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Human Nutrition, Faculty of Life ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations