# Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community

Jim Mccambridge, Mélissa Mialon

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Jim Mccambridge, Mélissa Mialon. Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community. Drug and Alcohol Review, 2018, 37, pp.565 - 579.
10.1111/dar.12826 . hal-05194935

HAL Id: hal-05194935

https://hal.science/hal-05194935v1

Submitted on 12 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

# Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community

JIM McCAMBRIDGE & MELISSA MIALON

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK

## Abstract

**Issues.** Alcohol companies have recently invested large sums of money in answering research questions to which they have clear vested interests in the outcomes. There have been extensive concerns about corporate influence on public health sciences, following the experience with the tobacco industry. **Approach.** This systematic review aims to investigate the perspectives of researchers on the activities of alcohol industry actors in relation to science, in order to guide future research. All data published in peer-reviewed journals (including commentaries, opinion pieces, editorials and letters as well as research reports) were eligible for inclusion. This analysis focuses on the manifest rather than latent content of the articulated views, and accordingly adopts a thematic analysis using an inductive approach to the generation of themes. **Key Findings.** There are serious concerns identified in three main areas, principally defined by where the impacts of industry scientific activities occur; on evidence informed policy making (instrumental uses of research by industry actors), on the content of the scientific evidence base itself (industry funding as a source of bias); and on the processes of undertaking research (transgressions of basic scientific norms). There are also opposing views which provide a useful critique. The evidence-base on the validity of all concerns has been slow to develop. **Implications.** The concerns are extensive, longstanding and unresolved and high quality investigations are needed. **Conclusion.** This study informs the detailed content of the research needed to address the concerns identified here. [McCambridge J, Mialon M. Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community. *Drug Alcohol Rev* 2018]

**Key words:** alcohol industry, bias, vested interests, science.

## Introduction

Approximately two-thirds of the funding for a recently commenced $100 million dollar clinical trial to investigate possible cardiovascular benefits of alcohol has been reported to have been provided by five global alcohol producers [1]. The scale of this investment in answering research questions in which the donors have clear vested interests is striking, as there is no known precedent in alcohol industry funding of research. This development arises against the backdrop of longstanding discussions within the research community about alcohol industry involvement in science [2,3]. There are also wider concerns about corporate influence on public health sciences and policy [4,5] and funding effects on research findings [6,7].

The significance of the tobacco industry's attempts to shape science as a means of influencing policy became apparent after the mandated release of internal company documents [8]. Bero [9] identified six strategies used by the tobacco industry to shape the evidence on risks associated with tobacco smoking: (i) Fund research that supports the interest group position; (ii) Publish research that supports the interest group position; (iii) Suppress research that does not support the interest group position; (iv) Criticise research that does not support the interest group position; (v) Disseminate interest group data or interpretation of risk in the lay press; and (vi) Disseminate interest group data or interpretation of risk directly to policy makers [9]. Later comparative study suggested similar strategies have also been used in other industries where internal documents are also available [10]. There have

Jim McCambridge, Professor PhD, Melissa Mialon, Research Fellow, PhD. Correspondence to Professor Jim McCambridge, Department of Health Sciences, ARRC Building, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. Tel: +01904 321667; E-mail: jim.mccambridge@york.ac.uk

Received 5 January 2018; accepted for publication 16 May 2018.
also been historical investigations spanning decades
which show environmental sciences being undermined
by corporate vested interests using similar
methods [11].

In this context, this systematic review aims to inves-
tigate the nature of the attention given by alcohol
researchers to the activities of alcohol industry actors
in relation to science. No previous systematic review in
this area has been conducted. This study is undertaken
to develop hypotheses to guide future research on the
alcohol industry and science. Specifically, this study
seeks to: (i) identify issues raised in peer-reviewed
journals on alcohol industry involvement in science;
and (ii) analyse these issues with a view to ascertaining
what empirical research may contribute.

Methods

This study examines how the research community has
considered alcohol industry involvement in science. It
was anticipated at the outset that there would be few
dedicated studies, so this review is designed to synthe-
sise existing perspectives as a preliminary investigation.
The study focuses on the manifest rather than latent
content of the articulated views, and accordingly
adopts a thematic analysis using an inductive approach
to the generation of themes [12]. This approach has
been described as being particularly well suited to
appreciation of a given group's conceptualisation of a
phenomenon being studied [12].

Data collection

To be included in this review, information contained
in peer-reviewed journals (including in commentaries,
opinion pieces, editorials and letters as well as research
reports) must:

* Focus on the activities of alcohol industry actors in relation to science;

* Be published during the period 1980–2016 inclusive;

* Be published in English.

The earliest date is chosen to include data prior to
the global concentration of alcohol producers since the
1990s [13]. No grey literature is included in this sys-
tematic review. Literature search strategies were devel-
oped using both MeSH terms and key words. Eight
health, social science and business databases were
searched:

• Web of Science Core Collection;

• BIOSIS Citation Index (Web of Science interface);

• CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost interface);

• Business Source Premier (EBSCOhost interface);

• Embase (Ovid interface);

• MEDLINE (Ovid interface);

• PsycINFO (Ovid interface);

• Scopus (Scopus interface).

The basic search strategy was organised around the
three constructs of ‘alcohol’, ‘industry’ and ‘science’
and developed with the support of a specialist librarian.
The search strategy for MEDLINE is presented in
Appendix S1 (Supporting information). Searches were
conducted on the 27 February 2017. The material
retrieved was downloaded and imported to EndNote.
Duplicates were removed using this software. Titles
(and abstracts where available) were screened by MM,
with a random sample checked by JM (10% of all
data). Potentially eligible full texts were obtained, usu-
ally in PDF format. Eligibility was determined by both
authors separately, with any disagreements resolved
through discussion. Hand searching of the journals
Addiction and Alcohol and Alcoholism was undertaken.
We also contacted topic experts (identified from those
who have published included material) with a view to
including additional data sources that may have been
missed. We did not publish a protocol for this review.

Data analysis

We began by reading all included material. Data were
extracted from all included records by both authors
using direct capture of relevant text from materials via
cut and paste with Microsoft Word and NVivo. Both
authors coded all data separately at first, then met to
discuss preliminary themes and their labelling, and
subsequent rounds of coding. The intention was to
make this process as inductive as possible, eschewing
the use of any pre-existing analytic categories.

The analyses explored thematically the research
community's views on alcohol industry involvement in
science, summarising and interrogating identified
issues with a view to providing an interpretive synthe-
sis. This involved consideration of how far the issues
raised have been studied, and what any such studies
have found, without making any assumptions about
the validity of the issues raised. Themes were itera-
tively refined, with revisions of labels and content as
the analysis progressed, staying close to the data [12].

The nature of this study precluded formal assess-
ment of risk of bias as the information sought is intrin-
sically biased in the sense that it does not necessarily
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.</figcaption></figure>

result from any scientific process. Both authors have studied corporate actors and public health, and the first author has specifically investigated the alcohol industry, thus having publications included within this review.

We offer a necessarily parsimonious account of a large dataset, reporting only on issues that have been prominently discussed. We cite included material to permit appreciation of how widespread particular views are. Quotations are used to provide direct access to the most informative data. The analyses are thus designed to present the most salient data, which should be straightforwardly recognisable and credible to the participants in these debates.

As a member validation exercise, we sent a draft copy of the results to eight researchers, four each to those with concerns and those who were critical of these concerns or their handling (see Results), and asked three questions about fairness, missing data and concerns about data handling. We received comments from seven, with comments from six endorsing the fairness of our approach and data handling, containing respondent views on the issues studied, and/or making helpful suggestions, including two who were critical of

the concerns. One respondent, however, found the tone ‘adversarial and accusatory’ and viewed the unequal number of pages devoted to both sides of the debate as a ‘possible indicator of the article’s bias’. Interestingly, the respondent suggested that the concerns ‘perspective may be oversimplified’ rather than seeing the debate as oppositional in character (see ‘Opposing views to articulated concerns’ section in Results). We reviewed the data and our reporting and decided not to alter the Results section on the basis of comments received from all 7 respondents. We also judged that it was appropriate to report the view expressed here that was different.

## Results

The PRISMA flowchart is presented in Figure 1, with 161 records included. There are serious concerns articulated in the bulk of the attention given by the research community to alcohol industry activities in science, with some scientists expressing contrary views. There are three main thematic areas of concern,
principally defined by where the impacts of industry
scientific activities occur; on evidence informed policy
making, on the content of the scientific evidence base
itself and on the processes of undertaking research.

Instrumental uses of research by alcohol industry actors

Strategic motivations. A core concern of the research
community relates to the reasons why alcohol industry
actors are involved in science [14–29]. Attention has
been consistently drawn to the legitimation and public
relations benefits of industry involvements in science.
Babor [20] provided an example of the chief executive
of a global alcohol producer articulating a strategic
motivation for providing research funding to a univer-
sity (in a speech to an industry group reported in a
national newspaper):

‘He [the chief executive] said the company did not want problems with binge drinking to lead governments to place higher taxes on its products and thus eat into revenues. The UCD [an Irish university] research funding is thus the perfect example of “enlightened self-interest”’ [20].

It has been widely suggested that there is an inherent
conflict of interest between the commercial goals of
industry actors and the production and dissemination
of public health research [2,3,16,21,26,29–41]. This
arises because such research may provide evidence of
the harms caused by the industry's products and prac-
tices [17,26]. Cook [22] proposed that evidence dem-
onstrating conflict of interest arises from how existing
evidence is interpreted by industry actors:

‘That they [the alcohol industry] evaluate the evidence
in the way that they do therefore appears to many impar-
tial observers to be a manifestation of, or evidence for,
the existence of the very conflict of interests that they
deny’ [22].

*Policy influence.* The possible value of relationships
with the international research community for
influencing policy makers has been of particular con-
cern [2,3,20,29–31,42–54], with the International
Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP), an alcohol indus-
try organisation created by major global producers
being prominent [18,46,55–70]. ICAP activities in low
and middle income countries have received widespread
attention [18,57,58,62,64,69,71]. As Jernigan and
Mosher elaborate; ‘collaboration of scientists with
ICAP provides the credentials the industry needs to

convince governments of developing countries to
neglect or weaken environmental safeguards regarding
alcohol use' [57].

Industry actors collectively fund such organisations which claim to be concerned with the social aspects of the harms done by alcohol that are; 'distanced from obvious corporate interests by funding "not-for-profit" organisations with innocuous names' [46] like ICAP. Tobacco control researchers refer to such organisations as 'front groups' [72]. Anderson suggested that 'a key work of social aspects organisations is to gain credibility and respectability through recruiting scientists' [15].

Scientific meetings, conferences and publications
are prominent among concerns [46]. According to
Babor and Robaina [3];

‘ICAP has sponsored 12 other conferences, involving a
mixture of industry representatives, academics, and gov-
ernment officials, in Europe, Africa, and Asia between
2003 and 2006... ICAP has published 10 books in its
Alcohol and Society series, most dealing with scientific
and public policy issues. The books tend to be co-
authored or coedited by a combination of ICAP staff,
academic researchers, and industry representatives’ [3].

Babor and Xuan [73] described shortcomings of an
ICAP report which; 'seems to present conclusions that
are inconsistent with its own data or unwarranted
because of faulty survey methodology. The conclusions
are also inconsistent with the considerable body of pol-
icy research that has been published in recent years'
[73]. Room [74] identified dissemination of research
findings in line with vested interests more generally to
be the case for social aspects organisations; 'measures
of undoubted effectiveness which would impair the
industry's collective interest are simply left off the
table' [74].

In a dedicated study by Jernigan [58], ICAP appears
to function specifically to counter the work of the
World Health Organization, with literature reviews
and other publications including model alcohol poli-
cies congenial to industry interests, and whose con-
tents; 'excluded or attempted to refute evidence
regarding the most effective strategies to reduce and
prevent alcohol-related harm' [58]. Alongside lack of
information on methods, the extremely biased content
of literature reviews is emphasised [58].

These findings are similar to another study which
identifies serious misrepresentations of evidence in
submissions made to influence policy in Scotland [75].
According to Hawkins and McCambridge [76], the
cumulative impact of such literature reviews and other
reports are to yield; 'a methodologically flawed and
highly biased but internally consistent parallel
literature to the international peer-reviewed scientific literature' [76].

Critical attention has been directed at other industry-funded books and reports which have apparently been commissioned for the purposes of policy influence. For example, Edwards and Savva [77] drew attention to the lack of any declaration of industry sponsorship in one book. Alcohol industry-funded think tanks have collaborated with, or commissioned reports from, academic sources which appear designed to influence policy debates [76,78]. For example, Jackson and Kypri [79] critiqued a report by an anthropologist funded by a New Zealand alcohol producer which reached the unlikely conclusion that alcohol consumption is not responsible for night-time violence.

This review has identified, however, only a small number of research studies of instrumental uses of research, including those pertaining to social aspects organisations and activities at the science/policy interface (see Table 1).

### Alcohol industry funding as a source of bias

In the first narrative literature review on the subject of alcohol industry activity in science, Babor [2] identified the following as concerns, almost all of which relate to use of funding: (i) Sponsorship of research funding organisations; (ii) direct financing of university-based scientists and centres; (iii) studies conducted through contract research organisations; (iv) research conducted by trade organisations and social aspects/public relations organisations; (v) efforts to influence public perceptions of research, research findings and alcohol policies; (vi) publication of scientific documents and support of scientific journals; and (vii) sponsorship of scientific conferences and presentations at conferences [2].

The nature of bias induced by research funding is considered here to have deleterious impacts at the levels of the individual research study [2,3,16,17,21, 26,32,36,59,66,67,73,74,80–92]. Bias could also have broader adverse impacts on research topic areas, research agendas, individual researchers, as well as institutions such as universities, academic conferences and societies and journals [2,3,15,16,18,25,26,29, 37,38,41,42,46,51,52,56,59,61,64–66,78,80,81,87,89, 93–105].

*Funding effects on research studies, topic areas and research agenda setting.* Smith suggested that; “bias is subtle and pervasive” [91] in funding effects, and by extension that the mechanisms are complex and may be difficult to detect. McCambridge and Hartwell [85]

noted; ‘the lack of prior quantitative study of the alcohol industry’s possible involvement in subversion of science is somewhat surprising in view of the evidence available on the effects of funding by other industries’ [85]. Andreasson and McCambridge [16] suggested that; ‘in addition to the potential for bias in the design, conduct, and reporting of research, industry funding for a particular topic may or may not be selected for scientific reasons. To the extent that funding for a particular research question is dictated by commercial reasons, it is likely to alter the research agenda’ [16]. Other scientists also address cumulative bias on topic areas and resulting agenda setting [25,46,56,80,86,99]. According to Stein [37], ‘industry only provides funding for certain kinds of issue, and fails to address many key research and policy questions’ [37]. It should be remembered that these data are expressed views, rather than the findings of empirical research.

*Biasing the work of individual researchers.* A 1985 BMJ editorial noted the potential of research funding to; ‘buy off an influential and articulate opponent’ [21] attesting to blunt impacts on individual researchers. Babor and Miller [32] described that; ‘conflicts of interest can further influence behaviour by imposing a “sense of indebtedness”, and thereby the obligation to reciprocate’ [32]. Babor and Robaina [3] placed this concern within career contexts; ‘investigators who receive funds are typically at an early stage of their medical or scientific careers’ [3].

Catford [81] noted the capacity of funding to; ‘create a dependence on this form of research funding which may then inhibit other independent research and inquiry’ [81], which together with the psychological effects suggests the possibility of cumulative impacts on individual researchers over time, presumably which only become serious for a small minority of all recipients of funding. Such effects on individuals may be considered to reinforce, and be reinforced by, cumulative bias impacts on topic areas and research agendas.

*Funding effects on institutions: universities, journals and academic societies.* Attention has been drawn to the possible effects of funding on a range of institutions, including the blurring of institutional boundaries. For example, Pinsky and Laranjeira [47] have described how in Brazil; ‘the industry has also begun recruiting alcohol researchers into its ranks by donating funds to an apparently independent university-based non-governmental organization (NGO)’ [47]. Similarly, Babor and Robaina [3] identified a close relationship between; ‘the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research...an undertaking of Boston University’s
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Research studies† included within this systematic review</caption><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Stated aims</td><td>Study design</td><td>Key author findings</td><td>Notes on risk of bias</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Babor and Xuan [73]</td><td>'Compare two (...) examples of survey research published in the grey literature', one published by the World Health Organization and the other by the International Center for Alcohol Policies, a social aspect organisation funded by the alcohol industry.</td><td>Documentary analysis.</td><td>'Although the two studies share a similar survey methodology and common policy aims, the findings and conclusions are very different'. (...) 'In the case of the ICAP survey, we have identified significant methodological and inferential flaws in the current report that would preclude meaningful comparisons with data collected in the future'.</td><td>The designs of both surveys mean that study findings are susceptible to multiple forms of bias. The ICAP survey reaches conclusions which the authors of this study note are inconsistent with its own data. The documentary analysis identifies key biases, though the nature of this study means that an assessment of risk of bias would require examination of the survey reports, for example, to address comprehensiveness.</td></tr><tr><td>Babor [2]</td><td>'Evaluate the ethical, professional and scientific challenges that have emerged from industry involvement in alcohol science'.</td><td>Narrative review.</td><td>'Industry involvement in alcohol science was identified in seven areas: (i) sponsorship of research funding organisations; (ii) direct financing of university-based scientists and centres; (iii) studies conducted through contract research organisations; (iv) research conducted by trade organisations and social aspects/ public relations organisations; (v) efforts to influence public perceptions of research, research findings and alcohol policies; (vi) publication of scientific documents and support of scientific journals; and (vii) sponsorship of scientific conferences and presentations at conferences'.</td><td>This study gathers and evaluates data from a wide range of different primary and secondary sources. As such it is not designed in ways that permit direct assessment of risk of bias. This study offers a key statement of possible targets for future research. These comments apply also to the later update of this study by Babor & Robaina (2013).</td></tr><tr><td>Jernigan [58]</td><td>'Document strategies used by alcohol producers to influence national and global science and policy'.</td><td>Case study.</td><td>'Their strategies include producing scholarly publications with incomplete, distorted views of the science underlying alcohol policies; pressuring national and international governmental institutions; and encouraging collaboration of public health researchers with alcohol industry-funded organisations and researchers'.</td><td>This study gathers and evaluates data from a wide range of different primary and secondary sources. As such it does not lend itself to direct assessment of risk of bias. This study offers a key statement of possible targets for future research and monitoring.</td></tr><tr><td>Babor and Robaina [3]</td><td>'[Explore] the emerging relationships among the alcohol industry, academic medicine, and the public health community in the context of public health theory dealing with corporate social responsibility'.</td><td>Narrative review.</td><td>'The alcohol industry has intensified its scientific and policy-related activities under the general framework of corporate social responsibility initiatives, most of which can be described as instrumental to the industry's economic interests'.</td><td>This study gathers and evaluates data from a wide range of different primary and secondary sources. As such it is not designed in ways that permit direct assessment of risk of bias. This study offers a key statement of possible targets for future research. These comments apply also to the earlier version of this review by Babor (2009).</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>**Table 1.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Stated aims</td><td>Study design</td><td>Key author findings</td><td>Notes on risk of bias</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>McCambridge et al. [75]</td><td>'Examine how research evidence is used in alcohol industry submissions made to a Scottish Government consultation in 2008 to advocate policies in line with their commercial interests'.</td><td>Documentary analysis/ case study.</td><td>'Industry actors consistently oppose the approaches found in research to be most likely to be effective at a population level without actually engaging with the research literature in any depth. Strong evidence is misrepresented and weak evidence is promoted. Unsubstantiated claims are made about the adverse effects of unfavoured policy proposals and advocacy of policies favoured by industry is not supported by the presentation of evidence'.</td><td>This study analyses data from a clearly identifiable set of documents pertaining to a globally important juncture in national alcohol policy development. There are few details provided of the analytic methods used, or of any conceptual framework used to interpret the results. Assessment of risk of bias draws attention to these reporting limitations.</td></tr><tr><td>Hawkins and McCambridge [76]</td><td>'[Examine] how SABMiller engaged the think tank Demos to produce reports on binge drinking, which were heavily promoted among policymakers at crucial stages in the development of the UK government's 2012 alcohol strategy'.</td><td>Case study.</td><td>'The perceived independence of an influential think tank was used to promote industry interests in tactics similar to those of transnational tobacco corporations'.</td><td>This case study examines particular reports produced by a think tank funded by an alcohol company, and focuses on the events surrounding their publication, within the context of a controversial period in alcohol policy. The study relies on multiple data sources that are triangulated, though there is little theoretical data provided. The study design does not lend itself to direct assessment of risk of bias.</td></tr><tr><td>McCambridge [85]</td><td>'[Examine] whether findings of alcohol's protective effects on cardiovascular disease may be biased by industry funding'.</td><td>Secondary meta-analysis of systematic review data.</td><td>'This study gives no specific grounds for concern that alcohol industry funding has biased what is known about the protective effects of alcohol on cardiovascular disease, apart from with regard to stroke. Our investigation provides evidence that findings from studies evaluating associations between alcohol consumption and incident stroke vary considerably according to whether or not there is concern about industry funding'.</td><td>The systematic review context of this study provides various key assurances about risk of bias. There are specific concerns, however, declared by the authors about the adequacy of the correspondence and online data collection methods used for identification of industry funding. This is quite likely to be biased in ways which are complex, through incomplete identification of funding.</td></tr><tr><td>Avery et al. [119]</td><td>'Examine all alcohol industry submissions ... to assist in understanding how those with vested interests contribute to policy development'.</td><td>Documentary analysis.</td><td>'Alcohol industry submissions sought to undermine community concern, debate the evidence, promote ineffective measures which are no threat to the profit margins and attack independent health professionals and researchers'.</td><td>This study analyses data from a clearly identifiable set of documents pertaining to an important alcohol policy issue. Appropriate analytic methods are used, and find little depth to the data presented. There are data adequacy and generalisability concerns.</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>**Table 1.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Stated aims</td><td>Study design</td><td>Key author findings</td><td>Notes on risk of bias</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Jackson [79]</td><td>‘A critique [of a report commissioned by the alcohol producer Lion Pty Limited, which consisted of an anthropological investigation into aggression and violence], addressing key claims with reference to the scientific evidence’.</td><td>Documentary analysis.</td><td>‘In our view, the report lacks credibility as a piece of independent academic research, failing to present a balanced appraisal of the relevant literature. Dr. Fox overstates the effectiveness of liquor accords, social marketing and alcohol education and underplays the causal role of alcohol in violence’.</td><td>This study analyses a specific industry-funded report designed to influence policy in the context of the scientific literature. There is not a statement of the analytic methods used. This study is not designed in ways that lends itself to straightforward assessment of risk of bias.</td></tr></tbody></table>

†Studies are defined as reports of data collection or analysis designed to address specific research questions or objectives.

Institute of Lifestyle and Health jointly with Alcohol in Moderation, a UK [social aspects] organization' [3]. They suggest that; 'industry funding has become a contentious issue at some universities...because of the potential for conflict of interest' [3]. Others have suggested possible funding effects on prestigious universities [16,58,76].

Babor *et al*. [17] reported on the resignation of the editor of the journal *Alcohol and Alcoholism*, citing interference by industry funders in the editorial work of the journal, which at the time was supported by industry funding. Babor and Robaina [3] identified how industry payments to journals to produce special issues can become vehicles of dissemination.

There are a range of concerns articulated about industry funding of academic conferences, in addition to those events organised by industry actors themselves. For example, Saitz [101] pointed out that the Research Society on Alcoholism meetings, the world's largest scientific conferences on alcohol, are supported by industry funding. Conference organisers and academic societies in receipt of industry funding such as the International Council on Alcohol and Addictions [106] and the International Society of Addiction Medicine [107] have defended their procedures against suggestions of bias.

This review identifies only three studies of bias in academic research comprising two narrative literature reviews of the various issues covered in this section [2,3], and one meta analytic study [85]. See Table 1 for details of main findings.

### *Other transgressions of basic scientific norms*

One alcohol policy scientist summarised the criticism received from various industry actors as follows: 'they [the alcohol industry] are engaging with science but

not with the scientific process - peer review, constructive discussion, balanced arguments, debate, critical appraisal of the totality of the evidence - so we're just responding to the same points over and over again' [78]. There are more specific expressions of concerns about impacts on the processes of science [2,3,17,20,32,44,73,74,76,78,84,98,107–109].

*Deficits in peer review.* Babor [20] described the award of substantial research funding to a research group by one alcohol company apparently without any peer review process. Foxcroft [84] agreed to peer review an ICAP report and found the process inadequate. Babor [2] noted that an application to the alcohol industry's dedicated research funding organisations; 'requires only a few pages of detail, in contrast to the extensive application process demanded by governmental funding agencies that support alcohol research in Europe and America' [2], calling into question the rigour of the decision-making process. Various authors [2,76,79] identify the conduct of studies without ethical approval.

*Lack of transparency.* There is a long history of lack of disclosure of industry funding by researchers. Jones [98] reminds us that the inventor of the Student's t-test; 'the statistician and chemist W. S. Gosset published important papers under the pseudonym "Student" because of various links he had with an industrial company, namely the Guinness brewery' [98]. This issue has given cause for concern for more than 20 years [17,110]. More recent concerns about lack of disclosure by researchers continue to be articulated [2]. This is despite the introduction of gradually more stringent standards for disclosure of conflicts of interest, both in addiction journals [111] and in the wider journal publishing sphere [112,113]. Babor and
Miller [32] described various difficulties in enforcing
such policies among those who are reluctant to adhere
to normative standards; ‘The authors argued that the
ICAP connection was not relevant to the topic of their
research…A check of the organizations with which the
authors were involved revealed a convoluted set of
financial connections’ [32]. They went on to suggest
that disclosure procedures may not be achieving the
intended purpose of promoting transparency [32].
Here again, social aspects organisations seem to play
an important role, as demonstrated by the numerous
references to the reports produced by ICAP
[2,3,20,73,74,84,108,114].

*Lack of trust.* Room drew attention to the ways in which industry actors presented themselves; ‘not as a representative of private corporate interests, but rather in two other guises. One is as a non-profit scientific entity acting on behalf of the common public good… The other guise is as a go-between or broker between public and private interests…as the “third party” bringing together private and public interests in a “global partnership”” [115].

According to Raw [65], for researchers inclined to
work with alcohol industry actors, the risks involved
centred around a lack of trust;

‘The obvious danger of working in partnership with them is not being quite sure whose agenda you are working to, or whether the industry agenda is quite what they would like you to believe it is…the alcohol industry appears to have decided (like the tobacco industry) not to work with the independent public health science field, and instead develop their own disinformation research agenda. I think this makes it difficult to trust them’ [65].

*Uncollegiate attacks on researchers and research.*

Research that conflicts with vested interests is also
attacked [2,3,17,20,24,30,44,96,116,117]. A repeat-
edly cited example [2,3,17,31,43,70,91,92,96,99,118],
is a case revealed by a whistle-blower, involving an
alcohol industry organisation, the Portman Group, in
the year prior to the formation of ICAP. It sought to
pay five academics large fees to produce anonymous
critiques of a major World Health Organization sum-
mary of the alcohol policy evidence-base [91]. When
writing to these academics, the director of the Portman
Group suggested; ‘I do not think that this book can be
allowed to go unchallenged… it is in my opinion,
unsatisfactory in the way it selects the evidence and
draws conclusions from it. Results are reported and
research cited selectively. Evidence which does not

support the views expressed is frequently ignored. But
I am far from an expert' [91]. This request was
designed to undermine the consensus position state-
ment of the world's leading alcohol policy scientists.
Gmel et al. [44] describe a commissioned attack on
their work by an academic without subject expertise
presented at a press conference. There was also evi-
dence of attacks on researchers in a study of submis-
sions made to a public consultation [119].

*Similarities in science involvements across industries.*
Parallels are drawn between apparent similarities
in the tactics of the alcohol industry and of other
industries, most notably the tobacco industry
[18,24,34,54,58,85,96,120–122]. To explain this, Jer-
nigan identified the influence of tobacco company
ownership of a major beer producer in the establish-
ment of ICAP [58].

*Opposing views to articulated concerns*

As might be expected, there are a range of views within
the research community about the issues analysed
here. In contrast to the various concerns discussed pre-
viously, there are also opposing views which are much
less frequently articulated but may provide material
with which to question the validity of those concerns
[27,55,106,107,123–151].

*A simplistic and unhelpful dualism.* The most com-
monly expressed views are that the concerns are over
simplistic and create a moralistic dichotomy, contain-
ing value judgements that are not made explicit. This
is succinctly articulated by Chafetz [124] as a ‘good
guys—bad guys’ narrative. Davies and Rotgers identify
an implication; ‘that some research (“virtuous”
research) is value-free, uncompetitive and not con-
flicted, whereas “commercial” research is uniquely pla-
gued by those things’ [127]. Davies and Rotgers go on
to articulate that such an approach is inherently divi-
sive; ‘we fear an increasing number of witch-hunts
involving people whose research we do not like for
ideological reasons that have nothing to do with their
science’ [127]. Fillmore and Roizen [55] regard the
concerns as a ‘campaign to marginalize beverage
industry involvement in alcohol science’ [55].

*Controversies and doubts.* Concerns about industry
funding or other behaviour often centre on episodes of
controversy (see Table 2). Some researchers regard the
risks or problems as being over-stated, and cite their
own experience of unproblematic alcohol industry
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Key discussions on the alcohol industry and science including controversies</caption><thead><tr><td>Index publication</td><td>Nature of the discussion/controversy</td><td>Number of other inclusions in this review† and references</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Wallack [48]</td><td>The index publication is a statement of concerns regarding alcohol industry strategies, including some material on science, as well as on policy. Issues discussed in associated records include evidence showing that drinking in moderation may have positive effects on health, and the relationship between the research community and the alcohol industry.</td><td>4 [134,138,140,150]</td></tr><tr><td>Edwards et al. [28]</td><td>This is a discussion about ethical issues in science in the addiction field, with some comments about the possible influence exerted by the industry. Associated records are supportive of a policy that would require researchers to disclose their conflicts of interest, and comments were made about the benefits this could have beyond research, including on policy.</td><td>4 [36,45,80,90]</td></tr><tr><td>Babor et al. [17]</td><td>This is a discussion and statement of key concerns about the alcohol industry's involvement in alcohol research. Associated records discuss the nature of relationships between researchers and the alcohol industry, and about the links between research and economic and political interests.</td><td>9 [24,83,94,106,121,124,144,160,165]</td></tr><tr><td>Plant et al. [89]</td><td>This is a discussion about ethical issues in alcohol research, including the potential influence of funders on researchers, with proposed guidelines and procedures to follow.</td><td>2 [98,159]</td></tr><tr><td>Hannum [131]</td><td>Dissemination of the Dublin principles of cooperation between the alcohol industry and researchers, developed by a group of experts convened by ICAP and the National College of Industrial Relations of Ireland.</td><td>4 [132,152–154]</td></tr><tr><td>McCreanor [46]</td><td>This describes concerns about the strategies used by ICAP, a social aspects organisation funded by the alcohol industry, to influence alcohol policy. Associated records further discuss the involvement of the alcohol industry in science and policy. Perspectives from different countries are presented, and links with other industries are also described.</td><td>17 [18,55–57,59–68,129,133,137]</td></tr><tr><td>Edwards et al. [77]</td><td>This is a statement of concerns about, the process through which a book was submitted to the journal Addiction, where the editor failed to mention that it was funded by the alcohol industry. Two of the related records nuance these concerns. There is also a discussion about the links between ILSI and the tobacco industry.</td><td>3 [103,135,148]</td></tr><tr><td>James [38]</td><td>This identifies threats to scientific integrity posed by public private initiatives in which the industry is involved, with a focus on ILSI. Further discussion focuses on the appropriate roles of researchers and the research community, if any, when interacting with the alcohol industry.</td><td>2 [115,181]</td></tr><tr><td>Foxcroft [84]</td><td>This is an account of the deficiencies in the peer reviewed process for a report produced by ICAP. Associated records discuss the political use of such reports by ICAP, and about its influence on policy more broadly. They also question the nature of relations between researchers and the industry.</td><td>4 [15,69,74,156]</td></tr><tr><td>Edwards et al. [43]</td><td>This editorial presents criticism of the appointment of the Chief Executive of the Portman Group to the Board of the Alcohol Education and Research Council by the British</td><td>6 [22,42,97,100,166,169]</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>**Table 2.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><td>Index publication</td><td>Nature of the discussion/controversy</td><td>Number of other inclusions in this review† and references</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Adams [93]</td><td>This discussion identifies risks taken by public health actors including the research community when receiving money from the dangerous consumption industries, and considers ways to assess these risks. Associated records discuss conflict of interest in science, and the roles that researchers could take in addressing these risks.</td><td>4 [25,47,86,155]</td></tr><tr><td>Caetano [51]</td><td>This presents a critique of a book published by four organisations including ICAP. Associated records explore and debate about the political use of science by industry actors.</td><td>2 [108,142]</td></tr><tr><td>Goozner et al. [111]</td><td>Offers a common standard for conflict of interest disclosure in addiction journals, with content on the relations between researchers and the alcohol industry. The contents are debated in the associated records. There is also a broader discussion about conflicts of interest in science.</td><td>4 [30,35,127,179]</td></tr><tr><td>Stenius and Babor [26]</td><td>A discussion and statement of concerns about the alcohol industry's involvement in alcohol research, as well as recommendations to minimize risks associated with it. Accompanying discussions of the influence exerted by the alcohol industry on science is provided in the associated records.</td><td>6 [53,82,128,130,143,149]</td></tr><tr><td>Andreasson and McCambridge [16]</td><td>A position statement from the International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol & Other Drugs, is presented which offers a critical view of research funding by the alcohol industry. Associated records discuss the role that industry could have in research, and its efforts to influence science. Suggestions about alternative sources of funding are also provided.</td><td>5 [27,34,49,146,147]</td></tr><tr><td>Allamani and Beccaria [39]</td><td>A discussion about conflicts of interest in alcohol research is provided. Associated records discuss ways to prevent influence by alcohol industry actors in science, and provide examples of researchers receiving funds or co-operating with the industry. There is further discussion about the potential reputational damage for scientists working for or with the industry.</td><td>5 [29,40,41,54,70]</td></tr></tbody></table>

†Including direct interventions by industry actors. ICAP, International Center for Alcohol Policies; ILSI, International Life Sciences Institute.

funding as evidence [133,135]. There are doubts about the importance of giving attention to industry involvement in alcohol research, as it is suggested that there are bigger issues to do with research funding and the environment in which alcohol research takes place [128,130,143].

Finally, there are articulations of support for the ‘Dublin Principles’ [131,132,152–154], an ICAP initiative that sought to promote partnership working between the research community and industry actors, around the time that the addiction research community was itself developing the Farmington consensus on issues relating to journal publication standards

including funding disclosure [123]. Some support for such partnerships was found in a survey of the research community [145]. Lemmens commented on his participation that; ‘my conclusion at the end of the Dublin meeting was that the industry was not willing to accept any restrictions in their dealing with the research field’ [70]. The views investigated here do not analyse industry actor interventions in controversies, which have more specific content and/or offer similar views to those previously described [125,126,129,134,136–142,144].

This review identified no published research studies designed to address issues raised by these opposing views, or in the previous section on transgressions of
scientific norms. Please note the following references
cited here were not included in the review
[72,80,112,113], and also that the following records
[51,155–173] included in the review did not provide
directly cited data.

Discussion

The major contribution of this study is to clarify the
nature of the concerns of the research community
and to draw attention to the need for, and inform
the detailed content of, further research. We identify
three main bodies of concern. Firstly, there clearly is
much concern about industry activities at the sci-
ence/policy interface. Yet, there are few studies of
this issue, despite the longevity of the expressions of
concern. Secondly, alcohol industry funding as a
source of bias in science is remarkably under-studied.
Lastly, there are no dedicated studies of transgres-
sions of scientific norms by industry actors, nor of
the controversies that have arisen for more than two
decades. The lack of attention to corporate actors
within science studies has previously been noted as a
major limitation of that literature [174]. The pur-
poses and underpinning values of studies of the
issues examined here should be explicit to limit
scope for accusations of moralism. Methodologically
rigorous studies may be capable of contributing to
minimising the polarisation that exists in the alcohol
research community with high quality empirical data
which addresses appropriately the complexity of the
issues involved. The need to do so was underscored
by the member validation exercise, which suggests
also that progress is possible.

It is important to give attention to the limitations of
this study. This is a somewhat unusual systematic
review, comprising a thematic analysis of documentary
data which has been systematically gathered. It is quite
possible that we will have missed data that should have
been included, partly given the nature of the data
being sought. We have also only included material
which clearly presents data on the alcohol industry and
science, not together with data on other industries or
other domains [175]. Readers may assess the appropri-
ateness of the analytic procedures and the trustworthi-
ness of the resulting manifest themes directly. We do
not elaborate conceptually on the latent thematic
material or perform in-depth discourse analyses of the
data. This study is also not designed to give equal cov-
erage of the arguments used, but rather offers a sum-
mary of the perspectives of researchers as articulated in
the included dataset, and an analysis of these views.

Study findings imply a need to: (i) study the involve-
ment of industry actors in research, and how research
is being used in alcohol policy making; (ii) make efforts
to protect research integrity from cumulative and
multi-layered forms of bias. ICAP has featured promi-
nently among the concerns reviewed here, and this
organisation has now been replaced with the Interna-
tional Alliance for Responsible Drinking (IARD)
which makes no claim to be independent of industry
interests [176], as did ICAP. IARD claims the Dublin
Principles are its own [177], and it might be expected
that IARD will similarly seek to influence scientific
norms, partly in order to use research as a means of
policy influence.

Research community concerns led to the conclu-
sions reached in the CLARION Declaration [71,178],
and also by the international brief interventions net-
work, INEBRIA [16], that alcohol industry funding
should be avoided. Industry funding will continue to
be made available to scientists, however, and col-
leagues will continue to accept it. Perhaps more likely
so in low and middle income countries where research
funding is scarcer, and which are targeted for expan-
sion by the alcohol industry [90,179].

The challenges identified appear to need to be
addressed by agencies including journals, professional
societies and universities [18,179,180]. They also
require further study of any beneficial or deleterious
consequences of industry involvement in research,
including for example divisions within the alcohol
research community, and also of measures to address
concerns. The need for further research to be comple-
mented by protection of research integrity has been
previously identified [181].

Future attention to the alcohol industry and science
may benefit from being placed in the context of
broader programmes of research on corporations,
public health and the science/policy interface, both
making contributions to the wider science, and by
being informed by it. Similarly, more sociological
studies of how competing claims are advanced within
the alcohol research community when the actions of
corporate actors are implicated and contested may
provide a complementary way forward. Multi-
disciplinary collaborations will be needed to achieve
these aims [5,182]. Stronger science is the best way
forward in response to concerns about corporate sub-
version of science.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Wellcome Trust Investi-
gator Award in Humanities and Social Science
(200321/Z/15/Z) to JM. The funder is neither involved in the design of the review nor in the decision to publish this study. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

## References

[1] Rabin RC. Is Alcohol Good for You? An Industry-Backed Study Seeks Answers. The New York Times, 3 July 2017.

[2] Babor TF. Alcohol research and the alcoholic beverage industry: issues, concerns and conflicts of interest. Addiction 2008;104:34–47.

[3] Babor TF, Robaina K. Public health, academic medicine, and the alcohol industry's corporate social responsibility activities. Am J Public Health 2013;103:206–14.

[4] Kearns CE, Glantz SA, Schmidt LA. Sugar industry influence on the scientific agenda of the National Institute of dental Research's 1971 National Caries Program: a historical analysis of internal documents. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001798.

[5] Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, Sheron N, Neal B, Thamarangsi T, et al. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet 2013;381:670–9.

[6] Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome: a Cochrane review. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:580–1.

[7] Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS. Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med 2007;4:e5.

[8] Bero L. Implications of the tobacco industry documents for public health and policy. Annu Rev Public Health 2003;24:267–88.

[9] Bero LA. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep 2005;120:200–8.

[10] White J, Bero L. Corporate manipulation of research: strategies are similar across five industries. Stanford Law Pol Rev 2010;105:1–10.

[11] Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. London: Bloomsbury Press, 2010.

[12] Joffe H. Thematic analysis. In: Harper D, ed. Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: a guide for students and practitioners. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

[13] Jernigan DH. The global alcohol industry: an overview. Addiction 2009;104:6–12.

[14] Anderson P. The beverage alcohol industry's social aspects organizations: a public health warning [commentary]. Addiction 2004;99:1376–7.

[15] Anderson P. Fingers burnt: a comment on Foxcroft [commentary]. Addiction 2005;100:1070–1.

[16] Andreasson S, McCambridge J. Alcohol researchers should not accept funding from the alcohol industry: perspectives from brief interventions research [perspectives]. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2016;77:537–40.

[17] Babor TF, Edwards G, Stockwell T. Science and the drinks industry: cause for concern [editorial]. Addiction 1996;91:5–9.

[18] Babor TF. Partnership, profits and public health [commentary]. Addiction 2000;95:193–5.

[19] Barbour V, Clark J, Jones S, Norton M, Veitch E. Let's be straight up about the alcohol industry. PLoS Med 2011;8:e1001041.

[20] Babor TF. Diageo, University College Dublin and the integrity of alcohol science: It's time to draw the line between public health and public relations [editorial]. Addiction 2006;101:1375–7.

[21] Editorial BMJ. Taking money from the devil [editorial]. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985;291:1743–4.

[22] Cook CC. Conflicts of interest and the common good in alcohol policy and research [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2005;100:1555–6.

[23] Miller P, Savva S. Credibility of drinkwise Australia under threat [news and notes]. Addiction 2007;102:833–4.

[24] Mosher JF. The drinks industry and alcohol research [letter to the editor]. Addiction 1996;91:1871–2.

[25] Moskalewicz J. Moral jeopardy or research integrity [commentary]. Addiction 2007;102:1034.

[26] Stenius K, Babor TF. The alcohol industry and public interest science. Addiction 2009;105:191–8.

[27] Martin CS, Greenfield TK, Babor TF. The key problem is that alcohol research is underfunded despite large industry profit and billions of dollars in annual alcoholic beverage tax revenues [perspectives]. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2016;77:545–7.

[28] Edwards G, Babor TF, Raw M, Stockwell T. Playing fair - science, ethics and scientific journals [editorial]. Addiction 1995;90:3–8.

[29] Room R. Sources of funding as an influence on alcohol studies. Int J Alcohol Drug Res 2016;5:15–6.

[30] Babor TF. Raising the standard: a response to the commentators [commentary]. Addiction 2009;104:1789–91.

[31] Babor T, Miller P, Edwards G. Vested interests, addiction research and public policy [editorial]. Addiction 2010;105:4–5.

[32] Babor TF, Miller PG. McCarthyism, conflict of interest and Addiction's new transparency declaration procedures [editorial]. Addiction 2014;109:341–4.

[33] Casswell S. Industry influences: more case studies needed [commentary]. Addiction 2004;99:1378–9.

[34] Andreasson S, McCambridge J. Alcohol industry funding and the research community: reply to commentaries [perspectives]. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2016;77:547–8.

[35] Babor TF. Towards a common standard for conflict of interest disclosure [editorial]. Addiction 2009;104:1777–8.

[36] Chowdhury AN. Ethics as everyone's business [commentary]. Addiction 1995;90:1318–20.

[37] Stein DJ. Academic-industry partnerships in alcohol and gambling: a continuum of benefits and harms. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 2015;52:81–4.

[38] James JE. Third-party threats to research integrity in public-private partnerships [for debate]. Addiction 2002;97:1251–5.

[39] Allamani A, Beccaria F. Editorial: discussing conflicts of interest during a Kettil Bruun society symposium, June 2014, Turin (Italy) [editorial]. Int J Alcohol Drug Res 2016;5:1–3.

[40] Babor TF. How should we define, document, and prevent conflicts of interest in alcohol research? Int J Alcohol Drug Res 2016;5:5–7.

[41] Sulkunen P. Commentary: knowledge is power, and power needs knowledge [commentary]. Int J Alcohol Drug Res 2016;5:11–2.

[42] Drummond C. The alcohol industry has a conflict of interest in alcohol research and policy [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2005;100:128–9.

[43] Edwards G, West R, Babor TF, Hall W, Marsden J. An invitation to an alcohol industry lobby to help decide public funding of alcohol research and professional training: a decision that should be reversed [editorial]. Addiction 2004;99:1235–6.

[44] Gmel G, Heeb JL, Rehm J. Research and the alcohol industry [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2003;98:1773–4 discussion 4-5.

[45] Maynard A. Ethics and the incentive structure [commentary]. Addiction 1995;90:1320–1.

[46] McCreanor T, Casswell S, Hill L. ICAP and the perils of partnership [editorial]. Addiction 2000;95:179–85.

[47] Pinsky I, Laranjeira R. Ethics of an unregulated alcohol market [commentary]. Addiction 2007;102:1038–9.

[48] Wallack L. WARNING: the alcohol industry is not your friend? [editorial]. Br J Addict 1992;87:1109–11.

[49] Adams PJ, Livingstone C. Commentary on INEBRIA's position statement on the alcohol industry [perspectives]. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2016;77:540–1.

[50] Anonymous. News and notes. Br J Addict 1992;87:1089.

[51] Caetano R. About smoke and mirrors: the alcohol industry and the promotion of science [editorial]. Addiction 2008;103:175–8.

[52] Kypri K, Walsh RA, Sanson-Fisher RW. Australian universities' open door policies on alcohol industry research funding [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2009;104:1765–7.

[53] Stenius K, Babor TF. Science and industry: comments on the commentaries [commentary]. Addiction 2010;105:206.

[54] Stenius K. Addiction journals and the management of conflicts of interest. Int J Alcohol Drug Res 2016;5:9–10.

[55] Fillmore KM, Roizen R. The new manichaeism in alcohol science [commentary]. Addiction 2000;95:188–90.

[56] Harrison L. ICAP and suspicions of bias [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2000;95:1265–7.

[57] Jernigan DH, Mosher JF. Permission for profits [commentary]. Addiction 2000;95:190–1.

[58] Jernigan DH. Global alcohol producers, science, and policy: the case of the international center for alcohol policies. Am J Public Health 2012;102:80–9.
[59] John U. Psychological problems of partnership and profit or: who has the higher population impact? [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2000;95:1436-7.

[60] Kerimi N. Responsible drinking in Russia: whose dream? [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2000;95:1432-5.

[61] Lemmens PH. Critical independence and personal integrity [commentary]. Addiction 2000;95:187-8.

[62] McCreanor T, Casswell S, Hill L. Perilous partnerships: a reply [commentary]. Addiction 2000;95:196-8.

[63] Moser J. Comment on ICAP [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2000;95:1431-2.

[64] Parry CD. ICAP agenda of concern to developing countries [commentary]. Addiction 2000;95:192-3.

[65] Raw M. Real partnerships need trust [commentary]. Addiction 2000;95:196.

[66] Rundall P. The perils of partnership - an NGO perspective [commentary]. Addiction 2000;95:1501-4.

[67] Samarasinghe D. ICAP and the new terminology [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2000;95:1438.

[68] Stenius K. Partnership and Nordic naivety [commentary]. Addiction 2000;95:188-90.

[69] Casswell S. ICAP's latest report on alcohol education - a flawed process [commentary]. Addiction 2005;100:1069-70.

[70] Lemmens PHHM. Critical independence and personal integrity revisited. Int J Alcohol Drug Res 2016;5:13-4.

[71] Olafsdottir H. The Dublin meeting on alcohol research and industry. Nord Stud Alcohol Dr 2008;25:313-5.

[72] Collin J, Hill S. Implications for global health governance. Addiction 2014;109:527-8.

[73] Babor T, Xuan Z. Alcohol policy research and the grey literature: a tale of two surveys [commentary]. Nord Stud Alcohol Dr 2004;21:125-37.

[74] Room R. What to expect from a 'social aspects' organization, and what to expect from school-based alcohol education [commentary]. Addiction 2005;100:1072-3.

[75] McCambridge J, Hawkins B, Holden C. Industry use of evidence to influence alcohol policy: a case study of submissions to the 2008 Scottish government consultation. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001431.

[76] Hawkins B, McCambridge J. Industry actors, think tanks and UK alcohol policy. Am J Public Health 2014;104:1363-9.

[77] Edwards G, Savva S. ILSI Europe, the drinks industry, and a conflict of interest undeclared [editorial]. Addiction 2001;96:197-202.

[78] Gornall J. Under the influence: 2. How industry captured the science on minimum unit pricing [feature]. BMJ 2014;f7531:348.

[79] Jackson N, Kypri K. A critique of Fox's industry-funded report into the drivers of anti-social behaviour in the night-time economies of Australia and New Zealand. Addiction 2016;111:552-7.

[80] Casswell S. Why it is helpful to know the funding source [commentary]. Addiction 1995;90:1317-8.

[81] Catford J. Battling big booze and big bet: why we should not accept direct funding from the alcohol or gambling industries [editorial]. Health Promot Int 2012;27:307-10.

[82] Chikritzhs T. Protecting the integrity of shared scientific knowledge: is the conflict of interest statement enough? [commentary]. Addiction 2010;105:200-1 author reply 5-6.

[83] Fillmore KM. Political and economic influences on alcohol-related science: some considerations [letters to the editor]. Addiction 1996;91:1872-4a.

[84] Foxcroft D. International Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP)'s latest report on alcohol education: a flawed peer review process [for debate]. Addiction 2005;100:1066-8.

[85] McCambridge J, Hartwell G. Has industry funding biased studies of the protective effects of alcohol on cardiovascular disease? A preliminary investigation of prospective cohort studies. Drug Alcohol Rev 2015;34:58-66.

[86] McLellan A. Implicit demand characteristics in research funding sources - It's not just some sources [commentary]. Addiction 2007;102:1035-7.

[87] Miller PG. Research independence matters for practitioners and researchers in the addictions. J Groups Addict Recover 2008;3:47-59.

[88] Moodie AR. Big alcohol: the vector of an industrial epidemic [commentary]. Addiction 2014;109:525-6.

[89] Plant M, Vernon B. Ethics, funding and alcohol research. Alcohol Alcohol 1996;31:17-25.

[90] Seijas D. A first kick [commentary]. Addiction 1995;90:1315-6.

[91] Smith R. Questioning academic integrity [editorials]. BMJ 1994;309:1597-8.

[92] Welch S. The iguana column [news and notes]. Addiction 1999;94:603-5.

[93] Adams PJ. Assessing whether to receive funding support from tobacco, alcohol, gambling and other dangerous consumption industries. Addiction 2007;102:1027-33.

[94] Babor TF, Edwards G, Stockwell T, West R. How does one write satire in Rome? A reply from the editors [letter to the editor]. Addiction 1996;91:1877-9.

[95] Buhringer G. Don't cover up distinct responsibilities, but co-operate on the action level under certain conditions [commentary]. Addiction 2004;99:1379-80.

[96] Edwards G. If the drinks industry does not clean up its act, pariah status is inevitable [ethical debate]. BMJ 1998;317:336.

[97] Edwards G, West R, Babor TF, Hall W, Marsden J. The integrity of the science base: a test case [editorial]. Addiction 2005;100:581-4.

[98] Jones AW. Some thoughts and reflections on authorship [commentary]. Alcohol Alcohol 1996;31:11-5.

[99] Lemmens PH. Buying research. Addiction 1997;92:1077-9.

[100] Mosher JF. The Portman group and the AERC: a view from the United States of America [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2005;100:129-30.

[101] Saitz R. Alcohol: no ordinary health risk [commentary]. Addiction 2015;110:1228-9.

[102] Sal RM. Collaboration with the alcohol industry [news and notes]. Addiction 1993;88:837-40.

[103] Shatenstein S. ILSI and the tobacco industry connection [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2001;96:1509-10.

[104] Badawy AAB. A new year message and a declaration [editorial]. Alcohol Alcohol 2003;38:1.

[105] Moskalewicz J. More research on the alcohol industry's attempt to influence policy and science is needed [commentary]. Addiction 2004;99:1377-8.

[106] Tongue E. A comment on science and the alcohol beverage industry [letter to the editor]. Addiction 1996;91:1063-4.

[107] El-Guebaly N. A dialogue with the alcohol industry: prohibition or harm reduction [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2001;96:515-6.

[108] Caetano R. The alcohol industry's smoke and mirrors [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2008;103:1231-2.

[109] Wodak A. The language of industry: toward a definition of liquorspeak [letters to the editor]. Addiction 1995;90:133-4.

[110] Albery IP. The iguana column, again [news and notes]. Addiction 1997;92:113-5.

[111] Goozner M, Caplan A, Moreno J, Kramer BS, Babor TF, Husser WC. A common standard for conflict of interest disclosure in addiction journals [for debate]. Addiction 2009;104:1779-84.

[112] Loder E, Brizzell C, Godlee F. Revisiting the commercial-academic interface in medical journals. BMJ 2015;350:h2957.

[113] Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2005;2:e138.

[114] Savva S. The iguana column [news and notes]. Addiction 2004;99:657-9.

[115] Room R. Private interests and public goods: whose hand is on the wheel? [commentary]. Addiction 2002;97:1256-7 author reply 7-8.

[116] Stockwell T, Zhao J, Martin G, Macdonald S, Vallance K, Treno A, et al. Misleading UK alcohol industry criticism of Canadian research on minimum pricing [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2013;108:1172-3.

[117] Welch S. The iguana column [news and notes]. Addiction 1999;94:293-5.

[118] Mayor S. Researcher objects to drinks industry representative sitting on alcohol research body [news roundup]. BMJ 2004;329:71.

[119] Avery MR, Droste N, Giorgi C, Ferguson A, Martino F, Coomber K, et al. Mechanisms of influence: alcohol industry submissions to the inquiry into fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Drug Alcohol Rev 2016;35:665-72.

[120] Miller P et al. The iguana column [news and notes]. Addiction 2009;104:1773-4.

[121] Laranjeira R. Liquorspeak and the developing world [letters to the editor]. Addiction 1996;91:1870-1.

[122] Miller PG, Kypri K, Chikritzhs TN, Skov SJ, Rubin G. Health experts reject industry-backed funding for alcohol research [letters]. Med J Aust 2009;190:713-4.

[123] Badawy AA, Tipton KF. The Farmington consensus [editorial]. Alcohol Alcohol 1998;33:1-5.

[124] Chafetz ME. "Good guys" versus "bad guys" in scientific inquiry [letter to the editor]. Addiction 1996;91:1875-6.
[125] Conibear H. Response to Babor & Miller editorial 'McCarthyism, conflict of interest and Addiction's new transparency declaration procedures' [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2014;109:1382-3.

[126] Coussins J. Portman group has always openly acknowledged its source of funding [letters]. BMJ 1999;317:336.

[127] Davies JB, Rotgers F. Disclosure in the best interests of science? Or moral crusade? [commentary]. Addiction 2009;104:1787-8.

[128] Gmel G. The good, the bad and the ugly [commentary]. Addiction 2010;105:203-5 author reply 5-6.

[129] Grant M. "Perils of partnerships": comments on an editorial [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2000;95:1429-30.

[130] Gual A. Conflicts of interest. A golden standard to generalize in addiction research [commentary]. Addiction 2010;105:199-200.

[131] Hannum H. The Dublin principles of cooperation among the beverage alcohol industry, governments, scientific researchers and the public health community [special commentary]. Alcohol Alcohol 1997;32:641-8.

[132] Hannum H. Condemning the drinks industry rules out potentially useful research [Ethical debate]. BMJ 1998;317:335-6.

[133] Heath DB. Another perspective on ICAP [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2000;95:1265.

[134] Herbits SE. Problem-solving is preferable [commentary]. Addiction 1993;88:9-10.

[135] Kalant H, Poikolainen K. Taking money from the drinks industry does not necessarily set up a conflict [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2001;96:1511.

[136] Lewis D. No grounds to beware Drinkaware [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2014;109:1762.

[137] Leverton M, Buckingham J, Naclerio S, Crutcher MB, Alexander B, Willersdorf G, et al. Drinks industry response [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2000;95:1430-1.

[138] Mitchell P. Why the alcohol industry sticks to facts, action, and common-sense rather than political rhetoric [commentary]. Addiction 1993;88:12-3.

[139] Owen R. A comment on 'Just say "no" to alcohol abuse and misuse' [letters to the editor]. Addiction 1995;90:133.

[140] Rae J. The case for collaboration [commentary]. Addiction 1993;88:11-2.

[141] Rae J. Most people are not disgusted by the Portman group [commentary]. BMJ 1995;310:1069.

[142] Robson G. Whose smoke and mirrors? [letter to the editor]. Addiction 2008;103:1231.

[143] Sulkunen P. Research funding - a complex business [commentary]. Addiction 2010;105:201-2.

[144] Turner TB. A personal note from a retiring president [letter to the editor]. Addiction 1996;91:1876-7.

[145] West R. Addiction, ethics and public policy [introduction]. Addiction 1997;92:1061-70.

[146] Tabakoff B. An opinion regarding the INEBRIA position statement on the alcohol industry and the thoughts of others on this issue [perspectives]. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2016;77:544-5.

[147] Wilsnack SC, Sher KJ, Fromme K, Leonard KE, Nagy LE, White HR. Not all industry-affiliated groups are created equal: some conditions under which science and industry may coexist ethically and for the public good [perspectives]. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2016;77:541-4.

[148] Doll R. ILSI: no attempt to influence [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2001;96:1510-1.

[149] Heath DB. Wanted: a broader view of alcohol studies [commentary]. Addiction 2010;105:202-3.

[150] Pittman DJ. The new temperance movement in the United States: what happened to macro-structural factors in alcohol problems? [commentary]. Addiction 1993;88:167-78.

[151] Martinic M. The research community and the private sector: a hands-on or hands-off relationship? Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2001;25:1801-4.

[152] Tipton KF, Badawy AAB. The Dublin principles of cooperation [editorial]. Alcohol Alcohol 1997;32:637.

[153] Anonymous. Principles of cooperation among the beverage alcohol industry, governments, scientific researchers, and the public health community [consensus paper]. Eur Addict Res 1997;3:205-6.

[154] Cooper DB. The Dublin principles [editorial]. J Subst Misuse 1997;2:181-3.

[155] Adams PJ. Trusting researchers to police themselves? [commentary]. Addiction 2007;102:1039-40.

[156] Allsop S, Midford R. Research dissemination: the challenge to ensure quality [commentary]. Addiction 2005;100:1071-2.

[157] Anonymous. News and notes. Br J Addict 1992;87:1731-4.

[158] Anonymous. The farmington consensus [special commentary]. Alcohol Alcohol 1998;33:6-8.

[159] Badawy AA. Ethics in alcohol research and publishing [editorial]. Alcohol Alcohol 1996;31:7-9.

[160] Dubois G. Alcohol advertising in France [letters to the editor]. Addiction 1996;91:1870.

[161] Farrell M. News and notes. Br J Addict 1990;85:579-82.

[162] Gordon R. Alcohol marketing and youth drinking: a rejoinder to the alcohol industry [for debate]. Alcohol Alcohol 2011;46:369-70.

[163] Grant M. News and notes. Br J Addict 1983;78:333-6.

[164] Grant M. News and notes. Br J Addict 1983;78:219-23.

[165] Hawks D. The drinks industry dilemma [letter to the editor]. Addiction 1996;91:1869.

[166] Heather N. Wait and see [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2005;100:1557.

[167] May C, Campbell S, Doyle H. Research misconduct: a pilot study of British addiction researchers [letter to the editor]. Addict Res 1998;6:371-3.

[168] Miller P, Jarvis M, Strain L. The iguana column [news and notes]. Addiction 2009;104:163-5.

[169] Olsen NDL. Membership of the alcohol education and research council (AERC) [letters to the editor]. Addiction 2005;100:126-8.

[170] Raw M. News and notes. Br J Addict 1986;81:843-6.

[171] Striley CW. A review of current ethical concerns and challenges in substance use disorder research. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2011;24:186-90.

[172] Braillon A. Consumption of alcohol, an addictive carcinogen, cannot be a healthy lifestyle choice! J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2016;77:838.

[173] Stockwell T, Chikritzths T, Naimi T, Zhao J. ISFAR doth protest too much: another attempt from industry sympathizers to marginalize scientific skepticism about alcohol's hypothesized health benefits? J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2016;77:839-41.

[174] Penders B, Verbakel JMA, Nelis A. The social study of corporate science: a research manifesto. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2009;29:439-46.

[175] Adams PJ, Buetow S, Rossen F. Vested interests in addiction research and policy poisonous partnerships: health sector buy-in to arrangements with government and addictive consumption industries. Addiction 2010;105:585-90.

[176] International Alliance for Responsible Drinking. Members & affiliations 2017. Available at: http://www.iard.org/about/members/ (accessed 28 July 2017). (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6sII69hbX).

[177] International Alliance for Responsible Drinking. IARD General Principles for Research 2017. Available at: http://www.iard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IARD-General-Principles-for-Research.pdf (accessed 28 July 2017). Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6sIIWRISm.

[178] Anonymous. The Clarion declaration. Nord Stud Alcohol Dr 2008;25:316.

[179] Obot IS. Disclosing conflicts of interest: common standards in uncommon contexts [commentary]. Addiction 2009;104:1786-7.

[180] Miller P, Kypri K. Why we will not accept funding from Drinkwise [commentary]. Drug Alcohol Rev 2009;28:324-6.

[181] James JE. Corporate threats to research integrity demand collective (not individual) action from scientists: reply to room's comments [commentary]. Addiction 2002;97:1256-8.

[182] Adams PJ. Addiction industry studies: understanding how consumption influences block effective interventions [commentary]. Am J Public Health 2013;103:e35-8.

## Supporting information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher's website:

## Appendix S1. Search strategy.