Letter: No evidence for bias

From Richard Laming, British Soft Drinks Association

You report a study that found research funded by the soft drinks industry has different results from research funded by other sources, and go on to suggest that there may be bias in the research itself (13 January, p 4). This inference is unjustified, for two reasons.

First, there is the choice of which research to fund. The authors of the study raise, but do not test, the hypothesis that research likely to be helpful to industry is more likely to attract its funding. They therefore have no grounds to reject this hypothesis in favour of the suggestion that it is the source of funding that determines the outcome of the research. Maintaining a diversity of sources of funding for scientific research will ensure that a wider range of research projects can attract funding.

Secondly, there is the conduct of the research itself. The whole point of the scientific method is to ensure that research results are not influenced by the sources of funding. Public scrutiny, including the processes of publication and peer review, prevent this from occurring. The authors of the study put forward no evidence that such influence has occurred, so there are no grounds for suggesting bias.

The soft drinks industry is required by regulatory authorities to demonstrate the safety of its products and so has an extensive commitment to credible and authoritative science.

London, UK