Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–18 | Cite as

Commercial interests, agenda setting, and the epistemic trustworthiness of nutrition science

  • Saana JukolaEmail author
S.I.: Philosophy of Epidemiology

Abstract

The trustworthiness of nutrition science has been questioned recently. According to the critics, the food industry has corrupted scientists in the field. I argue that the worries that commercialization threatens the epistemic trustworthiness of nutrition science are indeed well-founded. However, it is problematic that the discussion has revolved around how funding can threaten the integrity of researchers and the methodological quality of the studies. By extending Wilholt’s (Br J Philos Sci 64(2):233–253, 2013) account of epistemic trustworthiness, I argue that when assessing the epistemic trustworthiness of research that forms the basis for different health policy measures, it is necessary to evaluate research at the macro-level and whether agenda setting advances the goals that are assigned to the field. The prevalence of commercial funding becomes problematic if it leads to a situation where the body of available evidence that is used for making health policy decisions does not reflect the shared sense of what epistemic and non-epistemic goals of the inquiry are important.

Keywords

Nutrition research Trustworthiness Social epistemology Conflicts of interests Bias 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)—Project 254954344/GRK2073. I thank the anonymous reviewers as well as Stefano Canali, Martin Carrier, David Hopf, Marie Kaiser, Rui Maia, Cornelis Menke, Anja Pichl, Rose Trappes, and Roel Visser for their helpful comments and criticism.

References

  1. Austin, J., & Overholt, C. (1988). Nutrition policy: Building the bridge between science and politics. Annual Review of Nutrition, 8(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  2. Bes-Rastrollo, M., Schulze, M. B., Ruiz-Canela, M., & Martinez-Gonzalez, M. A. (2013). Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: A systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine, 10(12), e1001578.Google Scholar
  3. Biddle, J. (2007). Lessons from the Vioxx debacle: What the privatization of science can teach us about social epistemology. Social Epistemology, 21(1), 21–39.Google Scholar
  4. Blair, S., Hand, G., & Hill, J. (2015). Energy balance: A crucial issue for exercise and sports medicine. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49, 970–971.Google Scholar
  5. Bueter, A. (2015). The irreducibility of value-freedom to theory assessment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 49, 18–26.Google Scholar
  6. Byers, T. (1999). The role of epidemiology in developing nutritional recommendations: Past, present, and future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 69(6), 1304s–1308s.Google Scholar
  7. Carrier, M. (2017). Facing the credibility crisis of science: On the ambivalent role of pluralism in establishing relevance and reliability. Perspectives on Science, 25(4), 434–439.Google Scholar
  8. Caryn Rabin, R. (2018). It was supposed to be an unbiased study on drinking. They wanted to call it ‘Cheers’. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/health/nih-alcohol-study.html. Accessed 24 April 2019.
  9. Dixon, V. (2016). Why corporations make it hard to trust nutrition studies. Two words: Funding bias. Eater. Retrieved from https://www.eater.com/2016/1/15/10769590/nutrition-research-corporate-funded. Accessed April 6, 2018.
  10. Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579.Google Scholar
  11. Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elliott, K. C., & Richards, T. (2017). Exploring inductive risk. Case studies of values in science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2010). Science and technology report. Special eurobarometer 340/wave 73.1-TNS opinion and social. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2019.
  14. Folker, A. P., Andersen, H., & Sandøe, P. (2008). Implicit normativity in scientific advice. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 51(2), 199–206.Google Scholar
  15. Folker, A. P., Holm, L., & Sandøe, P. (2009). ‘We have to go where the money is’—Dilemmas in the role of nutrition scientists: An interview study. Minerva, 47(2), 217–236.Google Scholar
  16. Freidberg, S. (2016). Wicked nutrition: The controversial greening of official dietary guidance. Gastronomica: The Journal of Critical Food Studies, 16(2), 69–80.Google Scholar
  17. Funk, C. (2017). Real numbers: Mixed messages about public trust in science. Issues in Science and Technology, 34(1). http://issues.org/34-1/real-numbers-mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/. Accessed 24 April 2019.
  18. Gunnarsson, A., & Elam, M. (2012). Food fight! The Swedish low-carb/high fat (LCHF) movement and the turning of science popularisation against the scientists. Science as Culture, 21(3), 315–334.Google Scholar
  19. Holman, B., & Bruner, J. (2017). Experimentation by industrial selection. Philosophy of Science, 84(5), 1008–1019.Google Scholar
  20. Huovila, J., & Saikkonen, S. (2015). Establishing credibility, constructing understanding: The epistemic struggle over healthy eating in the Finnish dietetic blogosphere. Health, 20(4), 383–400.Google Scholar
  21. Ioannidis, J. P. (2013). Implausible results in human nutrition research. BMJ, 347, f6698.Google Scholar
  22. Irzik, G., & Kurtulmus, F. (2018). What is epistemic public trust in science? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy006.Google Scholar
  23. Jallinoja, P., Jauho, M., & Mäkelä, J. (2016). Newspaper debates on milk fats and vegetable oils in Finland, 1978–2013: An analysis of conflicts over risks, expertise, evidence and pleasure. Appetite, 105, 274–282.Google Scholar
  24. Jauho, M. (2016). The social construction of competence: Conceptions of science and expertise among proponents of the low-carbohydrate high-fat diet in Finland. Public Understanding of Science, 25(3), 1–14.Google Scholar
  25. Jukola, S. (2015). Meta-analysis, ideals of objectivity, and the reliability of medical knowledge. Science and Technology Studies, 28(3), 101–120.Google Scholar
  26. Jukola, S. (2019). On the evidentiary standards for nutrition advice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 73, 1–9.Google Scholar
  27. Kearns, C., Glantz, S., & Schmidt, L. (2015). Sugar industry influence on the scientific agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: A historical analysis of internal documents. PLoS Medicine.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798.Google Scholar
  28. Kiljunen, P. (2016). Tiedebarometri 2016. Helsinki: Tieteen tiedotus. Available http://www.tieteentiedotus.fi/files/Tiedebarometri_2016.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2019.
  29. La Caze, A. & Osimani, B. (Eds.) (Forthcoming). Uncertainty in pharmacology. Epistemology, methods, decisions. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, C., Sugimoto, C., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.Google Scholar
  31. Lesser, L. I., Ebbeling, C. B., Goozner, M., Wypij, D., & Ludwig, D. S. (2007). Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), e5.Google Scholar
  32. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mann, J. I. (2010). Evidence-based nutrition: Does it differ from evidence-based medicine? Annals of Medicine, 42(7), 475–486.Google Scholar
  34. Merton, R. (1942). The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–278.Google Scholar
  35. Musschenga, A., vanderSteen, W., & Ho, V. (2010). The business of drug research: A mixed blessing. In H. Radder (Ed.), The commodification of academic science (pp. 110–131). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Nestle, M. (2001). Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: A conflict of interest? Public Health Nutrition, 4(5), 1015–1022.Google Scholar
  37. Nestle, M. (2015). Soda politics: Taking on big soda (and winning). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nestle, M. (2016). Corporate funding of food and nutrition research: Science or marketing? JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(1), 13–14.Google Scholar
  39. Nestle, M. (2018). Unsavory truth. How food companies skew the science of what we eat. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. O’Connor, A. (2015). Coca-Cola funds scientists who shift blame for obesity away from bad diets [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/.
  41. Penders, B., Wolters, A., Feskens, E. F., Brouns, F., Huber, M., Maeckelberghe, E. L., et al. (2017). Capable and credible? Challenging nutrition science. European Journal of Nutrition, 56(6), 2009–2012.Google Scholar
  42. Reiss, J., & Kitcher, P. (2009). Biomedical research, neglected diseases, and well-ordered science. THEORIA. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia, 24(3), 263–282.Google Scholar
  43. Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  44. Schickore, J., & Steinle, F. (Eds.). (2006). Revisiting discovery and justification: Historical and philosophical perspectives on the context distinction (14th ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Shapin, S. (2007). Expertise, common sense, and the Atkins diet. In J. Porter & P. W. B. Phillips (Eds.), Public science in liberal democracy (pp. 174–193). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  46. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1999). Academic capitalism. Politics, science, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Stegenga, J. (2011). Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42(4), 497–507.Google Scholar
  49. Stegenga, J. (2018). Medical nihilism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Subar, A. F., Freedman, L. S., Tooze, J. A., Kirkpatrick, S. I., Boushey, C., Neuhouser, M. L., et al. (2015). Addressing current criticism regarding the value of self-report dietary data. The Journal of Nutrition, 145(12), 2639–2645.Google Scholar
  51. Tirado Gilligan, H. (2015) Nutritional science isn‘t very scientific. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2015/04/nutritional_clinical_trials_vs_observational_studies_for_dietary_recommendations.html. Accessed October 28, 2017.
  52. US Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). 2015–2020 Dietary guidelines for Americans. Washington (DC): USDA.Google Scholar
  53. Wilholt, T. (2009). Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 40(1), 92–101.Google Scholar
  54. Wilholt, T. (2013). Epistemic trust in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64(2), 233–253.Google Scholar
  55. Wilholt, T. (2017). Climate models and non-epistemic values. Paper presented at EPSA17, Exeter, UK.Google Scholar
  56. Worland, J. (2015). Anti-obesity group backed by Coca-Cola to shut down. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4131078/anti-obesity-coke-group/. Accessed October 1, 2018.
  57. Wyatt, W. J., & Midkiff, D. M. (2006). Biological psychiatry: A practice in search of a science. Behavior and Social Issues, 15(2), 132–151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations