3 ms·

That was a rather selective quote, given that the same article says this just a paragraph down: Institute director, Peter Martin, stresses that his research gr

That was a rather selective quote, given that the same article says this just a paragraph down: Institute director, Peter Martin, stresses that his research group wants to maintain "arms length" from the coffee industry for ethical reasons. "We are setting up a foundation to oversee the funds which will be administered by independent scientific directors to ensure that there isn't even an appearance of conflict of interest," he insists. In addition, the original article described a wide variety of studies done by many different institutions. I suppose it's possible that they're all just "studies" conducted by people in the pay of the nefarious coffee lobby, but we probably shouldn't start resorting to conspiracy theories without a little evidence.

patmcguire 14y ago
For the institute you have a situation where there's an institution regarded as objective and credible and someone who has a vested interest in the outcome donating money. This happens all the time. There's some form of regulatory capture in any industry, even if the regulation is something like "a general consensus among certain people that everyone in the industry respects that something is or isn't ok." Like in government, sometimes there is quid pro quo and sometimes there isn't, but I've never heard anyone come out and say, "Whoops, you caught us! We're totally taking money to sway our opinion!" The breadth of studies makes this look pretty legit. I just don't put much faith in obligatory denials.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 14y ago
The described articles may be impeccable, but selected because they agree with whatever viewpoint an institute wants to present. It's possible they've ignored anything not agreeing with them. And it's probable that groups do research that isn't published when it doesn't agree with whoever's funding it. Ben Goldacre's book (pro science, about flaws in current system of research and science reporting) "Bad Science" is w useful read.
aptwebapps 14y ago
" ... to ensure that there isn't even an appearance of conflict of interest ..." Too late for that.
fkdjs 14y ago
Except the articles selected where in the pro-coffee camp, the articles against coffee were not selected. This is called selection bias. I'd take what this guy has to say with a grain of salt.

patmcguire 14y ago

For the institute you have a situation where there's an institution regarded as objective and credible and someone who has a vested interest in the outcome donating money. This happens all the time. There's some form of regulatory capture in any industry, even if the regulation is something like "a general consensus among certain people that everyone in the industry respects that something is or isn't ok." Like in government, sometimes there is quid pro quo and sometimes there isn't, but I've never heard anyone come out and say, "Whoops, you caught us! We're totally taking money to sway our opinion!" The breadth of studies makes this look pretty legit. I just don't put much faith in obligatory denials.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

DanBC 14y ago

The described articles may be impeccable, but selected because they agree with whatever viewpoint an institute wants to present. It's possible they've ignored anything not agreeing with them. And it's probable that groups do research that isn't published when it doesn't agree with whoever's funding it. Ben Goldacre's book (pro science, about flaws in current system of research and science reporting) "Bad Science" is w useful read.

aptwebapps 14y ago

" ... to ensure that there isn't even an appearance of conflict of interest ..." Too late for that.

fkdjs 14y ago

Except the articles selected where in the pro-coffee camp, the articles against coffee were not selected. This is called selection bias. I'd take what this guy has to say with a grain of salt.