|
Front pages:2008
|
How do we interpret the results when the gambling industry funds research on addiction?7/3/08 A new article in Bloomberg News, "Harvard proves Gaming's Best Friend With Casino-Funded Research" addresses the issue about whether or not to trust the conclusions of academic studies when they are funded by industries which would benefit one way or another from certain results. Of course this boils down to whether or not to trust the integrity of the researchers themselves. Unless there are non-disclosure agreements, frowned upon or forbidden except in research involving national security at reputable universities, the funder is always taking a risk that the published results of a study will not be favorable to their industry. Having been a cranberry grower I am familiar with the university research into the health benefits of cranberries, funded in part by the cranberry industry. This is one example of a relatively low risk investment because, aside from existing evidence that cranberries are good for you, it is highly doubtful research will show they are bad for you. On the other hand, when the gambling industry funds research into gambling addiction there is the very real possibility, if not the likelihood, that the results will give at least some ammunition to gambling opponents. However, when there are some results they can easily be dismissed by claiming that the results were slanted because the study was funded by the industry. How should be evaluate claims that we ought to dismiss the results of research that is funded by the gambling industry? We need to consider the reputation of both the university and the researchers. Do they have a high standard for accepting funding from industries? We need to realize that researchers into controversial areas know their results will be under particular scrutiny, and they also realize that they have to be scrupulous in how they conduct their studies because their reputations are often on the line. They also know that there's a good possiblity other researchers will sometimes try to replicate their studies often using more rigorous models, and if the subsequent results aren't similar their own results will be throuwn into question. Gambling opponents want us to believe that a new casino will irrevocably increase the level of addiction among people who live nearby. However, research suggests this isn't true:
Whether one is a proponent or an opponent of casinos, all research should be judged on its merits. No researchers are saying that casinos don't have a detremental effect on risk factors for addiction to nearby communities. But the precise causes and effects are not as cut and dried as the outspoken casino oppoents would have us believe. It is important to keep an open mind when considering the results of studies like this. If and when the casino comes to Middleboro the so-called pros and antis need to work together to assure that best practices are used to deal with the potential for an increase in pathological gambling. Related: Gambling with science, from Salon, skews anti-gambling but does present both sides. It suggests a good solution to the research problem, having the government instead of the industry provide the funding.
|
|---|
It's real. It's serious. But because Middleboro almost certain to host a resort that is also a major casino, we should learn the basics about this psychiatric disorder.
