Centre for the Study of Gambling, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
South African National Responsible Gambling Foundation, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
J Gambl Stud. 2020 Sep;36(3):989-997. doi: 10.1007/s10899-019-09906-4.
This paper discusses the relationship between investigative credibility and the sources of funding associated with gambling research. Some researchers argue against accepting funding from gambling industry sources; similarly, they decline to participate in activities directly or indirectly sponsored by gambling industry sources. In contrast, these anti-industry investigators evidence less resistance toward accepting funds from sources other than industry, for example, governments, because they believe that they have greater independence, reliability, and validity, and less undue influence and/or interference. We organize this article, around six primary issues: (1) researchers making a priori judgments that restrict positions towards industry associated research; (2) the potential negative impacts of holding such a position; (3) a description of the different sources of funding available to support gambling-related research; (4) an examination of the extant empirical support associated with the sources of funding and whether such support evidences bias; (5) a description of six cases illustrating how refusing to participate in any project funded by the industry can adversely influence the advancement of science and, at times, be itself unethical; and finally, (6) we suggest some remedies to advance solutions to this problem by stimulating the participation of reluctant researchers to work towards a greater harmony, keeping in mind that the pivotal goal of our work is to increase our knowledge in different area of science and to harness it to public goods.
本文探讨了调查可信度与赌博研究相关资金来源之间的关系。一些研究人员反对接受来自赌博行业的资金;同样,他们也拒绝参与赌博行业直接或间接赞助的活动。相比之下,这些反行业的调查人员对接受非行业来源的资金的抵制程度较低,例如政府,因为他们认为这些资金具有更大的独立性、可靠性和有效性,并且受到的不当影响和/或干扰较小。我们围绕六个主要问题组织了这篇文章:(1)研究人员预先做出限制对与行业相关的研究采取立场的判断;(2)持有这种立场的潜在负面影响;(3)描述支持赌博相关研究的可用资金来源;(4)检查与资金来源相关的现有实证支持,以及这种支持是否存在偏见;(5)描述六个案例,说明拒绝参与任何由行业资助的项目如何会对科学的发展产生不利影响,有时甚至本身是不道德的;最后,(6)我们提出了一些补救措施,通过激励不情愿的研究人员参与,以实现更大的和谐,从而推进解决这个问题,牢记我们工作的关键目标是增加我们在不同科学领域的知识,并将其应用于公共利益。