Campaign for Accountability v. Google: Are research papers biased?

[WMGroomAK]

As a part of one of the projects run by the Campaign for Accountability's (CfA) Google Transparency Project, the group has identified 329 research papers which were published between 2005 & 2017 that were indirectly or directly funded by Google and has accused Google of funding academic research that backs it's own agenda.  In retaliation to this, Google fairly much says that they are more transparent with funding than the CfA and that the CfA is being funded by Google's opposition to discredit it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40592517

Quote

A campaign group has accused Google of using its deep pockets to fund academic research that backs its own agenda.

The Campaign for Accountability identified 329 research papers published between 2005 and 2017 on public policies that were indirectly or directly funded by the search giant.

Google hit back saying the group refused to name its own corporate funders.

It added that it valued researchers' "independence and integrity".

The Campaign for Accountability runs a series of projects, including one named The Google Transparency Project, which aims to expose the practices of the search giant.

CfA executive director Daniel Stevens said: "Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policy makers at every level. At a minimum, regulators should be aware that the allegedly independent legal and academic work on which they rely has been brought to them by Google."

 

In a statement, Google said in response: "Ever since Google was born out of Stanford's Computer Science department, we've maintained strong relations with universities and research institutes.

"We're happy to support academic researchers across computer science and policy topics, including copyright, free expression and surveillance, and to help amplify voices that support the principles of an open internet.

"And unlike our competitors who fund the Campaign for Accountability, we expect and require our grantees to disclose their funding."

In a detailed blogpost on the issue, the firm said that it was ironic that the CfA refused to name its own corporate funders.

"The one funder the world does know about is Oracle, which is running a well-documented lobbying campaign against us," it wrote.

Google Blog Post: https://www.blog.google/topics/public-policy/responding-campaign-accountability-report-academic-research/

 

I don't think it's really news that companies back research that advances their own agendas and ideas, however, what extent this occurs and whether or not Google is purposefully influencing the results of the research is a good question and a good reason to take any research report with a grain of salt.

[MaxBunny]

You're talking about a company that skews search results in favor of its own and liberal agendas on a daily basis. So it's not very surprising.

[GER_T4IGA]

Either I am dumb or the first question has some error in it? It sounds to me like the company backing research should ask for a list of other companies that also back that research with money which is not what you are asking(I think). If I am misunderstanding the questiuon, please elaborate. I'll take all english lessons I can get!

[WMGroomAK]

7 minutes ago, GER_T4IGA said:

Either I am dumb or the first question has some error in it? It sounds to me like the company backing research should ask for a list of other companies that also back that research with money which is not what you are asking(I think). If I am misunderstanding the questiuon, please elaborate. I'll take all english lessons I can get!

My general question is along the lines of if a company is funding research, as a part of the requirements for that funding, should the researcher have to list all of their funding sources, including the company/companies funding it.  More in particular, I'm wondering if companies should have an internal policy that research they fund must list that they have funded or partially funded it.

[GER_T4IGA]

1 minute ago, WMGroomAK said:

My general question is along the lines of if a company is funding research, as a part of the requirements for that funding, should the researcher have to list all of their funding sources, including the company/companies funding it.  More in particular, I'm wondering if companies should have an internal policy that research they fund must list that they have funded or partially funded it.

What i was suggesting is that your question might be hard to understand but I am glad to here I got it right

EDIT: Yes, Yes.

[typographie]

Quote

The Campaign for Accountability identified 329 research papers published between 2005 and 2017 on public policies that were indirectly or directly funded by the search giant.

This article does not seem to make it clear whether or not the research papers mentioned did or did not actually disclose their funding sources. The CfA isn't happy about it and I guess that implies they think the funding wasn't properly disclosed, but Google claims otherwise. It seems like it would be easy enough for the BBC to find out what the truth is and mention that in the article.

 

It also isn't clear why the CfA believes the studies were influenced to reach conclusions favorable to Google. I don't think the simple fact that Google's money was involved is convincing evidence for that when dealing with peer-reviewed research. I don't think we'd be in a very good place if we threw out every piece of scientific research funded by a corporate interest.

 

The funding should be disclosed for scientific research, and crucially, the results published for peer review. If one or both of those are not happening, it shouldn't be treated as credible research.

[Prysin]

He said She said,

[mr moose]

If the research is transparent and passes all the peer review requirements, then where the funding comes from is moot. 

 

Nearly all research is funded by private enterprise, i.e medical, social, technology.  Not becasue they need to illegitimately validate their product (which isn't actually possible if the research is genuine) but because they benefit from knowing the facts, they can adapt there product to be profitable in reality.   It's much easier to make product that works than to push out a lump of shit and try to convince everyone it works the best.  

[Taf the Ghost]

It should be noted that in almost every field, you can "buy" research that supports your side of whatever topic you want. Some are just worse than others. Sad part is that because of the nature of statistical analysis, no one has to actually "lie" about any results. You just pick, carefully, what you're going to look at from the beginning.  It's relatively easy to shape an outcome from knowing the inputs. 

 

This is why "peer-reviewed" research means very little. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It should be noted that in almost every field, you can "buy" research that supports your side of whatever topic you want. Some are just worse than others. Sad part is that because of the nature of statistical analysis, no one has to actually "lie" about any results. You just pick, carefully, what you're going to look at from the beginning.  It's relatively easy to shape an outcome from knowing the inputs. 

 

This is why "peer-reviewed" research means very little. 

 

Peer review means nothing if it isn't peer reviewed by a credible journal.  Bending statistics is the realm of media and marketing (politics too), not genuine scientific journals.  The biggest confusion with peer review is that it isn't a publish then review process, peer review is an independent validation process to weed out poor or biased research before publication and any publications are open to review and retraction permanently.   Ergo Google can only fund the research, they cannot choose who reviews the research to ensure it is genuine, especially if they want it published in a respectable journal.

[Mihle]

When it comes to research papers, EVERY SINGLE THING that has to do with the research, should be mentioned.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

Peer review means nothing if it isn't peer reviewed by a credible journal.  Bending statistics is the realm of media and marketing (politics too), not genuine scientific journals.  The biggest confusion with peer review is that it isn't a publish then review process, peer review is an independent validation process to weed out poor or biased research before publication and any publications are open to review and retraction permanently.   Ergo Google can only fund the research, they cannot choose who reviews the research to ensure it is genuine, especially if they want it published in a respectable journal.

"Peer Review" is simply an editing process. Process reviews are follow-on studies, but the problem there is most studies that make it to publication aren't repeatable. It's a big issue in biotech because of some studies to replicate important results found most of them were just simply outliers and never showed anything important. Respectability of the publication matters little, as all of them are "captured", in the Regulatory Capture sense.

 

This isn't a new issue. In fact, it's a problem that stems back at least several hundred years. We've just had a huge boom in the respectability of Scientists in the last 50 years because of significant advances and a lot of people going into scientific study. A proper understanding of scientists understands that they're pretty much all wrong. What we remember is the rare time they get something right. 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

"Peer Review" is simply an editing process. Process reviews are follow-on studies, but the problem there is most studies that make it to publication aren't repeatable. It's a big issue in biotech because of some studies to replicate important results found most of them were just simply outliers and never showed anything important. Respectability of the publication matters little, as all of them are "captured", in the Regulatory Capture sense.

 

This isn't a new issue. In fact, it's a problem that stems back at least several hundred years. We've just had a huge boom in the respectability of Scientists in the last 50 years because of significant advances and a lot of people going into scientific study. A proper understanding of scientists understands that they're pretty much all wrong. What we remember is the rare time they get something right. 

peer review maybe dumbed down to "editing process" if you like, but it is still a thorough independent review to ensure a study/article is of the highest scientific quality. 

 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/04/peer-reviewed-literature-what-does-it-take-to-publish-a-scientific-paper/

[captain_to_fire]

Quote

Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.

 

When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this. When the BMJ published a highly controversial paper that argued that a new `disease', female sexual dysfunction, was in some ways being created by pharmaceutical companies, a friend who is a journalist was very excited—not least because reporting it gave him a chance to get sex onto the front page of a highly respectable but somewhat priggish newspaper (the Financial Times). `But,' the news editor wanted to know, `was this paper peer reviewed?'. The implication was that if it had been it was good enough for the front page and if it had not been it was not. Well, had it been? I had read it much more carefully than I read many papers and had asked the author, who happened to be a journalist, to revise the paper and produce more evidence. But this was not peer review, even though I was a peer of the author and had reviewed the paper. Or was it? (I told my friend that it had not been peer reviewed, but it was too late to pull the story from the front page.) (emphasis is mine)

 

Defects of Peer Review:

1. Slow and expensive 
2. Inconsistent
3. Bias 
4. Abusive peer review

Read the rest: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Article by Dr. Richard Smith, director of United Health Chronic Disease Initiative [here]