4 ms·

Normally when companies fund research, there is a slight conflict of interest because they want the public to buy their products and positive research can nudge

Normally when companies fund research, there is a slight conflict of interest because they want the public to buy their products and positive research can nudge them in that direction. And that research can be suspicious, and sometimes inflated, but generally the conclusions are directionally correct. And for that reason, I may scrutinize, but do not immediately discard the findings of soy industry funded research on the health benefits of soy, etc. All that gets thrown out the window when an insurance company funds research. Because insurance companies don't profit from consumers being informed...they profit from information asymmetry. Deliberate exaggeration of risks is pure profit for them.

michaelt 5y ago
> when companies fund research [...] generally the conclusions are directionally correct. I'm not sure I understand why that should be the case? After all, plenty of research gets handed over to the company that paid for it, who get to decide whether to release it publicly it or not - so negative reports never see the light of day.
- darksaints 5y ago
  Indirectly, that's exactly the reason why. * If the research points in the opposite direction of the desires of the research funders it will likely get squashed. Researchers aren't typically keen on putting their name on publications that are pointing to the opposite direction of the truth. * If the research points in the same direction as the desires of research funders, it gets published. It may be exaggerated, but research that has the correct direction but exaggerated scale isn't quite the black and white ethical dilemma that the former scenario is. So asbestos companies might publish research saying that the risk of cancer is low, but they won't publish research that says that it is an excellent antioxidant. This same observation also extends to insurance companies, but with insurance companies, the conflict of interest isn't the direction of research, it is the magnitude of the exaggeration. Because the gap between real risk and the fake published risk is their entire profit margin.

michaelt 5y ago

> when companies fund research [...] generally the conclusions are directionally correct. I'm not sure I understand why that should be the case? After all, plenty of research gets handed over to the company that paid for it, who get to decide whether to release it publicly it or not - so negative reports never see the light of day.

darksaints 5y ago
Indirectly, that's exactly the reason why. * If the research points in the opposite direction of the desires of the research funders it will likely get squashed. Researchers aren't typically keen on putting their name on publications that are pointing to the opposite direction of the truth. * If the research points in the same direction as the desires of research funders, it gets published. It may be exaggerated, but research that has the correct direction but exaggerated scale isn't quite the black and white ethical dilemma that the former scenario is. So asbestos companies might publish research saying that the risk of cancer is low, but they won't publish research that says that it is an excellent antioxidant. This same observation also extends to insurance companies, but with insurance companies, the conflict of interest isn't the direction of research, it is the magnitude of the exaggeration. Because the gap between real risk and the fake published risk is their entire profit margin.