5 ms·

Are the studies still producing valid, peer-reviewed results?

balabaster 11y ago
That depends who you ask... they've probably been peer reviewed by other biased peers who are on Coca-Cola's payroll... or at least peers who favour these big food companies. So technically, yes, they're peer reviewed. Does it make them any more valid? Draw your own conclusions.
- jonlucc 11y ago
  That's not how peer-review works in science journals. If Coke publishes the data on their website, they don't need any additional hoops. If it gets published in a scientific journal, the article is sent in to the editor. Then the editor makes a decision if it's even the kind of thing they'd want in their journal and either sends it back or sends it to their choice of scientists in the field. Those scientists (usually 4) offer revision suggestions and their feedback. It's then up to the editor to reject the article, print it, or require modifications before printing it.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - onion2k 11y ago
    If Coke funds 1000 studies in to the effect of exercise, and they all demonstrate "not exercising enough" is a contributing factor to obesity then the media will be full of stories about how no exercise makes you fat, and Coke will have successfully made it look like their products aren't to blame. The 1000 studies could all valid science but there's still a problem because it's skewing the amount of evidence away from diet and towards exercise, when the reality is that both are important.
    - forgetsusername 11y ago
      >it's skewing the amount of evidence away from diet and towards exercise, when the reality is that both are important. I very much doubt that a series of studies, if valid, and even if funded by Coke, is "skewing" the amount of evidence. It's common knowledge that fitness is dependent on diet and exercise. I don't see much wrong with a corporate entity producing legitimate science that happens to support their product (if that's the case here), especially in a maternalistic society like the US, that wants to "ban" things like soft drinks for "the good" of the populace.
    - jonlucc 11y ago
      > If Coke funds 1000 studies ... media will be full of stories That is a problem with the (non-scientific) media and not the scientific process or press.
seiji 11y ago
There are two possible things happening in the article and neither are explored (yay NYT!). Case A: the school already had this research happening. Coke saw the research could help their arguments and decided to pay them to do more of their already existing projects. Case B: Coke started from a marketing perspective, interviewed scientists at different universities, then commissioned the studies and created the departments themselves using the "shadow funding."
SilasX 11y ago
I'm of three minds about this. OT1H, it shouldn't matter who writes something if it holds up to scrutiny. OTOH, no system, no matter the safeguards, can withstand constant attempts to subvert it by ordinary members. The scientific process can stop sporadic fraud, but not deliberate fraud by the majority of participants. OT3rdH, it's also playing with fire to tell an organization it can't defend itself, even against a scientific consensus, by bankrolling research that tends to favor itself. I for one wish we would have had more of that from Big Fat to resist the "less fat, more carbs" dogma we heard for decades.

That depends who you ask... they've probably been peer reviewed by other biased peers who are on Coca-Cola's payroll... or at least peers who favour these big food companies. So technically, yes, they're peer reviewed. Does it make them any more valid? Draw your own conclusions.

jonlucc 11y ago
That's not how peer-review works in science journals. If Coke publishes the data on their website, they don't need any additional hoops. If it gets published in a scientific journal, the article is sent in to the editor. Then the editor makes a decision if it's even the kind of thing they'd want in their journal and either sends it back or sends it to their choice of scientists in the field. Those scientists (usually 4) offer revision suggestions and their feedback. It's then up to the editor to reject the article, print it, or require modifications before printing it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- onion2k 11y ago
  If Coke funds 1000 studies in to the effect of exercise, and they all demonstrate "not exercising enough" is a contributing factor to obesity then the media will be full of stories about how no exercise makes you fat, and Coke will have successfully made it look like their products aren't to blame. The 1000 studies could all valid science but there's still a problem because it's skewing the amount of evidence away from diet and towards exercise, when the reality is that both are important.
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >it's skewing the amount of evidence away from diet and towards exercise, when the reality is that both are important. I very much doubt that a series of studies, if valid, and even if funded by Coke, is "skewing" the amount of evidence. It's common knowledge that fitness is dependent on diet and exercise. I don't see much wrong with a corporate entity producing legitimate science that happens to support their product (if that's the case here), especially in a maternalistic society like the US, that wants to "ban" things like soft drinks for "the good" of the populace.
  - jonlucc 11y ago
    > If Coke funds 1000 studies ... media will be full of stories That is a problem with the (non-scientific) media and not the scientific process or press.

seiji 11y ago

There are two possible things happening in the article and neither are explored (yay NYT!). Case A: the school already had this research happening. Coke saw the research could help their arguments and decided to pay them to do more of their already existing projects. Case B: Coke started from a marketing perspective, interviewed scientists at different universities, then commissioned the studies and created the departments themselves using the "shadow funding."

SilasX 11y ago

I'm of three minds about this. OT1H, it shouldn't matter who writes something if it holds up to scrutiny. OTOH, no system, no matter the safeguards, can withstand constant attempts to subvert it by ordinary members. The scientific process can stop sporadic fraud, but not deliberate fraud by the majority of participants. OT3rdH, it's also playing with fire to tell an organization it can't defend itself, even against a scientific consensus, by bankrolling research that tends to favor itself. I for one wish we would have had more of that from Big Fat to resist the "less fat, more carbs" dogma we heard for decades.