The National Institutes of Health, a federal organization which provides grants to scientific researchers and university scholars, made national news last year after Trump’s 2017 budget proposal sanctioned significantly less money than years past to the government organization. College professors and students, even those from Boston University, feared the funding for their research would no longer be renewed. Others felt the proposal was an attack on scientific information and threatened the value of scientific experimentation.
In 2015, the NIH’s Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism contacted head researchers of an alcohol-related study, which included a BU professor, who were looking into the relationship between alcohol advertisements and underage drinking. The director of the agency told the colleagues their research would no longer be supported by the NIAAA. But the justification behind this decision was unfounded, as another factor was at play.
New reporting from The Boston Globe’s STAT reveals that the NIH’s ties with the alcohol industry are far deeper than we thought. A few years back, The New York Times learned that the NIH was secretly endorsing another study, which suggested that moderate drinking should be a part of a healthy diet. Specifically, agency officials have been encouraging alcohol companies to contribute millions of dollars to such research, so it would make sense for them to disapprove of research on alcohol ads, implying they make teenagers and other underage drinkers more inclined to consume brands they see on television. Threatening alcohol ads could hurt alcohol companies, and they might no longer work with the NIH if it provides financial backing to the research.
In an email to a member of an alcohol lobbying group, a NIAAA worker promised that he “will NOT be funding this kind of work under [his] tenure.” The NIAAA worker maintains the research was not thoroughly done and did not meet the level of high scientific quality in order to receive government funding.
But there’s something deeply troubling when a government institution partners with alcohol groups to conduct research that would ultimately benefit the pockets of alcohol executives. Alcohol ads result in increased revenue, and suggesting that moderate drinking is OK will certainly benefit the lucrative industry in cashing in on those purchasing alcohol on a more regular basis if the study proves to be true. Ultimately, this partnership resembles a conflict of interest between a scientific organization working for the greater good of the public and alcohol groups seeking to benefit their own interests and to improve profits.
Similar to the situation faced by the tobacco industry decades ago, research on alcohol ads could be effective in preventing misinformation. Cigarette companies launched a series of ads suggesting that there were health benefits to smoking, as indicated by scientific research. Of course today we know that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, or at the very least can result in severe health complications. Smoking can quite literally kill. Big Tobacco was simply exploiting customers, especially young ones, to buy cigarettes.
At the end of the day, any sort of agency or group that obstructs science and knowledge is not OK, especially when it comes to places that deal with research. The NIH should certainly not feel like it needs to deny funding from organizations in order to appeal from others — it should simply be the agency that facilitates good research, no matter the implications. Scientific knowledge is important for improving and progressing society, and frequent, constant research ensures a healthy, functioning society.
