The NCRG Firewall Works

Abstract

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher's web-site:Appendix S1 The NCRG Firewall. Appendix S2 Organizational Nomenclature. Appendix S3 NCRG-Funded Publication Data. REPLY TO COTTLER ET AL.'S LETTER TO THE EDITORIn their letter concerning our Editorial [1], Cottler et al.[2] assert that our analysis of conflict of interest (COI) and funding declarations in published papers supported by the National Center for Responsible Gaming (NCRG) 'leads readers to think mistakenly that NCRG is exerting influence on the science it funds, and that NCRG awardees do not want to divulge the source of funding for fear their science will not be published'. We disagree with both these assertions.Our main point was that people receiving NCRG funding were not declaring a real or potential COI. Nowhere in their letter [2] do they question the accuracy of our estimate that few NCRG recipients are declaring a COI in their published reports. Identifying whether authors were reporting the funding source at all was only a secondary point of our comment. For our analysis of funding declarations, we counted only papers that acknowledged NCRG. As the NCRG Scientific Advisory Board members stated in their letter [2], we did not count the Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling and Related Disorders or its successor, the Institute for Research on Gambling Disorders, which is described 'as an independent program of the NCRG' [3]. This is a major reason for the difference. The reason we focused on NCRG was that the sample was taken from the NCRG website, which states that all papers result from NCRG funding [4]. If NCRG and the gambling industry are taking credit for their support of gambling research, especially in their public relations activities, it is fair to ask why researchers are not acknowledging that credit, and even more frequently are failing to declare a potential COI. As noted in our Editorial [1], transparency and current ethical practice dictate that both the source of funding and the potential COI be declared with publication.Cottler et al. note rightfully that none of the papers in the sample referred to in the Editorial were selected from the most recent years available at that time. The reason is that the editorial was drafted in stages over a 2-year period, and the incidence of non-disclosure that precipitated our search of NCRG studies occurred in 2009. Accordingly, we see no reason to change our original statement that NCRG-funded research has not been documented adequately as having a real or potential COI. Declarations of interestNone.

Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016–2019): A Scoping Review

“…There are two potential explanations for this pattern of findings. First, it is possible that researchers—being aware of criticisms of industry funded research and thus seeking objectivity (see Cottler et al, 2016 )—intentionally use more open science practices to help emphasize the firewall of independence between researchers and their industry funders. Indeed, this particular issue is discussed by Louderback et al ( 2021 ), going so far as to develop guidelines for the integration of open science practices within industry funding models.…”

Personality disorders and pathological gambling

“…As the National Institutes of Health relinquishes responsibility for funding research on this topic, the number of funding agencies that will fund gambling research is reduced to one—the National Center for Responsible Gaming [17*, 18*]. Comorbidity treatment and prevention studies all compete for limited funding.…”

Reply to Cottler et al. (2016): The NCRG firewall works more for the gambling industry than for the scientific community

“…The pharmacokinetics varies between individuals due to variations in metabolic rates and redistributions; the elimination half-life of THC ranges from hours to days [2,3]. Among occasional users, the THC concentration declines to less than 1 ng/mL in blood 4-12 hours after smoking a cannabis dose of 20-30 mg THC for most, but not all subjects, whereas among frequent users, more than 24 hours are needed to achieve a THC concentration in blood below 1 ng/mL in most cases [4][5][6][7], mainly because THC is distributed into adipose tissue and released slowly back into the blood.…”

“…In their letter about my Commentary, a group of gambling industry-supported researchers [3] seem to illustrate exactly what I was saying.…”