Social change research studies both subjective and objective experiences in order to help improve government public policy, business patterns, educational institutions, and other interventions that can help improve injustices in society (RMIT Social Change Platform, 2023). The subcategory of social change research, activist research, refers to research that has motive, whether it is politically, socially, or financially motivated. With an agenda that doesn’t prioritize attaining accurate and objective information, results may be compromised and should be evaluated carefully. This research has been apparent within the health industry, medical industry, gas/oil industry, and especially in politics (Fabbri et al., 2018). Lobbying, which describes influencing governmental organizations, allows CEOs, commissioners, and organization presidents to participate in private meetings with for-profit companies that maintain established agendas. These interest groups can use their internally funded research to influence change through lobbying politicians or even within their own organization, making activist research significantly more dangerous.
According to Opensecrets (2023), the tobacco industry lobbied roughly $28 since 2019, highlighting how much profit is still being made in the industry. Furthermore, in 1954, the US tobacco manufacturers published an advertisement that advocated the health benefits of smoking, which later appeared in 448 newspapers and reached an estimated 43 million U.S. Americans (Cummings et al., 2002). Bero (2005) adds that interest groups, like the tobacco industry, should be expected to manufacture evidence to align with their predefined policy position, but these motives aren’t always apparent. For the tobacco industry, this has been the case, with over 50 years of success, without ever having to pay the price for the health consequences. It was only discovered later that the tobacco industry gave the appearance that the research was externally funded, when in fact, it was entirely dependent on the industry (Hegde & Sampat, 2015). While the tobacco industry was a strong example of activist groups lobbying and deceiving the public, other brands have even taken this process a step further.
Coca-Cola successfully shifted the focus of obesity research by funding research that promoted physical activity, minimizing the role its products had on obesity (O’Connor, 2015). Furthermore, they funded a non-profit organization, while being inconspicuous about the involvement, which emphasizes that interest groups can even attain their goals indirectly or through manipulation of other companies. In addition to Coca-Cola’s expenditure on its sweetened soft drinks, they have spent millions of dollars in the plastics lobby, fighting against small deposits for the return of bottles (Lerner, 2019). The work or intentions of such large corporations is often deceiving, and interest groups take advantage of people’s economic/social status. Like Coca-Cola, other companies that support non-profits and their research publicly, use private money to buy public science.
It is critical that society evaluates industry-funded studies (especially when it is not as apparent) and considers any potential biases while doing so. Lobbying and activist research can go hand-in-hand when getting research implemented into law or recommended to the public, which is a process many corporations seem to exploit. Pharmaceutical companies, the food/beverage industry, and others all took part in this deception process, whether it was the advocacy of drugs/food or the ban of such items. Although an additional problem lies in the fact that publicly funded research in the US. allows for independent procedures and decisions (Hegde & Sampat, 2015), the predominant issue here is the control lobbies have over decisions that have global consequences. Moreover, these corporations can receive grants, and were found to frequently lobby congress to fund their research projects (Hegde & Sampat, 2015), leaving the public to pay the price for the deterioration of their own and the world’s health.
References
Bero, L. A. (2005). Public health chronicles. Public Health Reports, 120(2), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490512000215
Cummings, K. M., Morley, C. P., & Hyland, A. (2002). Failed promises of the cigarette industry and its effect on consumer misperceptions about the health risks of smoking. Tobacco Control, 11(Supplement 1), i110–i117. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i110
Fabbri, A., Lai, A., Grundy, Q., & Bero, L. A. (2018). The influence of industry sponsorship on the research agenda: A Scoping Review. American Journal of Public Health, 108(11), e9–e16. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2018.304677
Hegde, D., & Sampat, B. (2015). Can private money buy public science? Disease group lobbying and federal funding for biomedical research. Management Science, 61(10), 2281–2298. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2107
Lerner, S. (2019, October 18). Leaked audio reveals how Coca-Cola undermines plastic recycling efforts. The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2019/10/18/coca-cola-recycling-plastics-pollution/
O’Connor, A. (2015, August 9). Coca-Cola funds scientists who shift blame for obesity away from bad diets. Well. https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/
Opensecrets. (2023). Tobacco lobbying profile. OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2019&id=A02
RMIT Social Change Platform. (2023). Social change platform. Www.rmit.edu.au. https://www.rmit.edu.au/research/our-research/enabling-impact-platforms/social-change#:~:text=Social%20change%20research%20makes%20sense