Scientists bristle at the suggestion that taking money from drug companies can influence their results. Yet research has consistently shown that studies of new treatments or drugs were much more favorable when funded by drug makers than other sources such as the federal government. Similarly, two weeks ago, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. revealed that the herbal supplement St. John's wort wasn't effective in treating major depression. But the fine print at the end of the journal article, where researchers disclose their monetary ties, should have given readers pause. Pfizer, which makes the antidepressant Zoloft, not only underwrote some of this research but also had financial connections with many of the study's investigators.
People can use science for or against any point of view they want to promote.
Critics quickly challenged the validity of the study, noting that the increased risks were actually quite minuscule, and pointed out that Dr. Joel Brind, a biochemist at Baruch College in New York and the lead author of the study, had spoken out against abortions. Sometimes, it's not possible to do the neatly designed double-blind studies. You can't assign someone randomly to be obese, or to smoke, or even to take up exercise. Epidemiological research, however, is not definitive. Consequently, if one of these mammoth studies yields an intriguing, statistically significant link, researchers will study it further.