• p3n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    There is no such thing as an impartial sponsor; some are more obviously biased than others, but the belief in a fictitious impartiality is part of the problem. It shouldn’t take a meta-study for people to see am obvious conflict of interest.

    I’m biased. You are biased. Everyone is biased.

    • i_love_FFT@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      What if the sponsor is the blanket university funding for a professor’s research? It may have some bias, but there is no steak in the actual result.

      I expect to see “these results call for more research on the topic”, but that’s pretty much it.

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        steak

        stake?

        Accepting funding from sponsors responsible for pollution & publishing environmental toxicology studies that disfavor those sponsors was pretty common at the university medical office where I worked.

      • p3n@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I guess I didn’t communicate my point effectively. I wasn’t trying to nitpick semantics. I was trying to say that people don’t think critically because they assume impartiality.

        If the first thing people did when they looked at a study was to ask what possible biases or conflicts of interest the sponsors have, then conducting a meta-study concluding that biased studies are biased wouldn’t be news to anyone.