Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31155001›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2019

Are industry-funded charities promoting "advocacy-led studies" or "evidence-based science"?: a case study of the International Life Sciences Institute.

Sarah Steele, Gary Ruskin, Lejla Sarcevic, Martin McKee, David Stuckler

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Interactions Between Nutrition Professionals and Industry: A Scoping Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sarah SteeleDepartment of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. ss775@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1794-7394
Gary RuskinU.S. Right to Know, Cambridge, USA.
Lejla SarcevicJesus College, Jesus Lane, Cambridge, CB58BL, UK.
Martin McKeeDepartment of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
David StucklerDepartment of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndustry sponsorship of public health research has received increasing scrutiny, and, as a result, many multinational corporations (MNCs), such as The Coca-Cola Company and Mars Inc., have committed to transparency with regard to what they fund, and the findings of funded research. However, these MNCs often fund charities, both national and international, which then support research and promote industry-favourable policy positions to leaders. We explore whether one industry funded charity, the International Life Sciences Institute ('ILSI'), is the scientifically objective, non-lobby, internationally-credible body that it suggests it is, so as to aid the international health and scientific communities to judge ILSI's outputs.

methodsBetween June 2015 and February 2018, U.S. Right to Know), a non-profit consumer and public health group, submitted five U.S. state Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) to explore ILSI engagement with industry, policy makers, and/or researchers, which garnered a total of 17,163 pages for analysis. Two researchers explored these documents to assess the activities and conduct of ILSI against its purported objectives.

resultsWithin the received documents we identified instances of ILSI seeking to influence research, conferences, public messages, and policy, including instances of punishments for ILSI bodies failing to promote industry-favourable messaging. We identified ILSI promoting its agenda with national and international bodies to influence policy and law, causing the World Health Organization to withdraw from official relations with what it now considers a private sector entity.

conclusionsILSI seeks to influence individuals, positions, and policy, both nationally and internationally, and its corporate members deploy it as a tool to promote their interests globally. Our analysis of ILSI serves as a caution to those involved in global health governance to be wary of putatively independent research groups, and to practice due diligence before relying upon their funded studies and/or engaging in relationship with such groups.

Indexed as

Research Support as TopicCharitiesHumansIndustryResearchAdvocacyConflicts of interestIndustry fundingInternational Life Sciences InstituteLobbying

Identifiers

PMID31155001
PMCPMC6545704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.