I hope everyone is as excited as I am about New York Times reporter Roni Caryn Rabin’s recent exposure of the cozy relationship between the National Institute of Alcohol Addiction and Alcoholism (NIAAA), scientists researching moderate drinking, and representatives of the alcohol industry.[1] Following up last year’s article, which suggested that industry funding could compromise a $100 million study to assess whether a daily drink conferred cardiovascular benefits, Ms. Rabin’s latest investigation revealed that the scientists in charge had solicited that funding by indicating that the answer would be “yes.”

I’m trying not to write this in all caps, but I’m just so HAPPY to see the MAINSTREAM MEDIA pay ATTENTION to ALCOHOL INDUSTRY INFLUENCE IN ADDICTION SCIENCE that I can hardly contain myself. Then, as though the article alone weren’t Christmas in March, three days later the director of the National Institutes of Health announced an investigation into the questions Ms. Rabin raised.[2] WAHOO!

Okay, I’ll calm down now. The overarching issue is influence, which is an issue in all scientific research funded by “private-public partnerships.” How independent can a study be when it’s funded by an industry with a clear financial stake in the results? In this case, the influence consists of five manufacturers: Anheuser-Busch InBev, Heineken, Diageo, Pernod Ricard and Carlsberg. And the hoped-for result, worth $100 million to these giant corporations is that a daily drink is part of a healthy human diet.

To insulate the researchers from this influence, the NIH restricts communication between them and their donors. As a strategy, this restriction seems disingenuous; I’m pretty sure the scientists can guess what results the donors want. In fact, I’m pretty sure the delivery guy who brings them pizza during those late nights in the lab can guess what results the donors want.

Nonetheless, Ms. Rabin’s article reveals that the researchers more or less promised up front to deliver those industry-friendly results if Anheuser-Busch InBev et al. would only pick up the $100 million tab! For its money, the industry got to vet the researchers and the design of the experiment, which, as I pointed out in an earlier post, seems guaranteed to deliver a “healthy” verdict. So any firewall now in place is not just disingenuous; it’s actively deceptive.

I vigorously recommend reading Ms. Rabin’s article, which is both substantive and shocking. As you probably guessed from my earlier excitement, I have long been uneasy about collaboration between NIAAA, the researchers they fund, and the alcohol industry, but the brazenness of this example is truly breathtaking.

Now, because the article is so damning (and in The New York Times), the National Institutes of Health has to investigate the latest threesome. In a formal statement and in comments to reporters, NIH director Francis Collins promised to take the investigation “very seriously” and acknowledged the possibility of “inappropriate discussions” between researchers, NIAAA officials, and representatives of the alcohol industry.[3] He did, however, express confidence that the study would yield reliable data about whether a daily drink has cardiovascular benefits. “The controversy,” he insisted, “is how the study came about.”

Can Director Collins truly believe that the study’s origins will not strongly influence (if not determine) its conclusions? Let’s hope that his investigators prove less naïve—or less inclined to believe that we are.

Update: the study has been cancelled! The NIH admitted that the study was improperly compromised by industry sponsorship and designed to produce an alcohol-positive result. An investigation is forthcoming–of the NIAAA, by the NIAAA. Sigh.

[1] See Roni Caryn Rabin, “Federal Agency Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking,” The New York Times, March 17, 2018.

[2] Roni Caryn Rabin, “NIH to Investigate Outreach to Alcohol Companies,” The New York Times, March 20, 2018.

[3] Unfortunately, Mr. Collins’s statement was not released online, nor was a transcript of his comments to reporters. So my information comes from the March 20 NYT article and from Amy Goldstein, “NIH will examine ethics of its study on the health effects of a daily glass of wine,” The Washington Post, March 20, 2018.