BF2S Forums Privately Funded Research

Is it peer reviewed research? If so, I don't see the problem. That should take care of concerns regarding "self-licking ice-cream cone" syndrome.

In the article, they disclose the funding source and how it was used in a very obvious and deliberate way:

Funding/Support: This study was supported by Jenny Craig Inc (Carlsbad, California), which provided program activities, materials, and prepackaged foods to individuals assigned to the commercial weight loss program. Funding was provided through a clinical trial contract to the coordinating center (School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego), which subsequently disbursed funds to the collaborating clinical sites and the laboratories. Data from the clinical sites and the laboratories were forwarded to the coordinating center where they were pooled for analysis.

So, would you say that peer review is the line that can be drawn between genuine research and marketing?

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So, would you say that peer review is the line that can be drawn between genuine research and marketing?

The point of peer review is to weed out bad science.  The real question you should be asking is this -- would the study have been published had the findings put Jenny Craig in an unfavorable light?  If it's published and the science is sound, then it's great for them.  If the data showed that Jenny Craig didn't help dieting in any statistical way and the study was subsequently abandoned, no one would know.

Even if buried, eventually someone comes up with something better, or people figure it out and not use the product any more.

In the case you mentioned, if it was bad science, they'd eventually figure out who the fat ones are.

FEOS wrote:

This isn't earth-shattering by any stretch. Pharmacetical companies do privately-funded research all the time and submit the results to professional journals for peer review and publication. Do they stand to profit from the results of the research? You damn betcha!

It just happens that in this particular case, it was a weight loss company doing it.

The article mentions that specifically, saying that at least the FDA keeps a close eye on them, but there is no regulatory agency here.  Of course, I don't see the need for one here.

Edit: @Pug:

Yes, people will eventually figure it out...I just wonder what happens in that case, lol

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-10-13 14:12:10)

SenorToenails wrote:

FEOS wrote:

This isn't earth-shattering by any stretch. Pharmacetical companies do privately-funded research all the time and submit the results to professional journals for peer review and publication. Do they stand to profit from the results of the research? You damn betcha!

It just happens that in this particular case, it was a weight loss company doing it.

The article mentions that specifically, saying that at least the FDA keeps a close eye on them, but there is no regulatory agency here.  Of course, I don't see the need for one here.

Edit: @Pug:

Yes, people will eventually figure it out...I just wonder what happens in that case, lol

Mainly because you're talking about drugs in the case of pharm companies. FDA oversight is required for public safety once the drug is manufactured. And for the human trials, as well.

Weight loss programs aren't regulated by the FDA.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So, would you say that peer review is the line that can be drawn between genuine research and marketing?

If the research is subjected to peer review and there is full disclosure, why can't it be both?  It's totally different if they are providing funding and their marketing department is running the research.

Very true...

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Mainly because you're talking about drugs in the case of pharm companies. FDA oversight is required for public safety once the drug is manufactured. And for the human trials, as well.

Weight loss programs aren't regulated by the FDA.

Yes.  That was the point.  The article, already making a mountain out of a molehill, tried to make this research somehow different than the boatloads of pharma-funded research by saying 'that research is regulated...this isn't!' as though it were some shocking revelation.

Melodrama = ratings...   

You like that phrase today, don't you?

Well...I used to work as a Jenny Craig Weight Loss consultant...I can say that, honestly...the women are FOR SURE losing more weight than independent dieters.  What those numbers are not telling you is that those women are also more likely to put the weight back on than the independent dieter.  It is a simple program that limits your caloric intake and promotes physical activity.  They are given the prepackaged meals as a plan so it is easy.  But most women lose the weight and quit without learning any real valuable dietary skills.

I guess my point is that privately funded research isn't necessarily wrong...they just release information that makes them look good.  I don't see JC releasing a report about how many of their clients put their weight back on and sometimes even more than they lost...

Turquoise wrote:

So, would you say that peer review is the line that can be drawn between genuine research and marketing?

No. There's an awful lot of back scratching that goes on in peer review. It's good but it's hardly infallible or free of corruption.

SenorToenails wrote:

It's human, so really, it can't be infalliable or free of corruption...but there can't be that much back scratching since you don't really know who is reviewing your manuscript.

Pretty much...

As long as they don't hide their results (and yes peer review, whilst far from perfect and there are some obvious things i can think of that would improve it) I don't see the problem.