The Stockholm Network
BMJ 2010; 341 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6413 (Published 10 November 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;341:c6413
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Steve Harkins and Melissa Jones question the ability of the Stockholm
Network to produce independent research since we receive funding
from the pharmaceutical industry.
I entirely agree that funding sources for research carried out
by policy-making organisations such as think tanks ought to be
transparent wherever possible. We are funded by memberships and
research grants from a range of companies, foundations and
individuals. Not only do we not hide this, but we list all sponsors on
our website and in our annual reports. In fact, most of the material
cited by Harkins and Jones as evidence for our industry bias is
provided by our own reports. This allows people to reach their
own conclusions regarding our work, both in light of our funding, but
most importantly from its substance. However Harkins and Jones's
criticism is aimed purely at our (openly declared) funding, not at the
substance of what we say - this is, after all, the easier target.
Allegations of lobbying are easy to make and essentially impossible
to
refute when unsubstantiated. This is why journals such as the BMJ now
make declaration of competing interests an important part of
publication. Harkins and Jones's Powerbase project has been set up by Spin
Watch to be critical of think tanks, particularly
those with a pro-market stance, and is funded by a number of
foundations with an explicit anti-globalisation agenda. As such it is
not surprising there may be an ideological opposition to what we have
to say. I note that no information is given in the article as to the
sources of their own funding.
As long as competing interests are declared, fair criticism of a
think tank's work in a scientific journal such as the BMJ should be based
on the merits of the research rather than simply on a political agenda
which opposes the existence of think tanks in the first place.
Competing interests: I am responding to criticism of the organisation I run.
Re: Legitimacy of think tanks
Publishing a list of funders is not full transparency
Helen Disney, the Chief Executive of the Stockholm Network, the
private company that coordinates the work of more than 100 free-market
think tanks argues that 'funding sources for research carried out by
policymaking organisations such as think tanks ought to be transparent
wherever possible'. She claims that 'we list all sponsors on our website
and in our annual reports' and the funding of the Network is 'openly
declared'. In fact, Disney does not publicly disclose how much money her company gets from Pfizer, GSK or Merck or the rest of the corporate interests that bankroll her operation.
This raises questions over how closely the research produced by the
Stockholm Network correlates to the commercial interests of its sponsors.
One sponsor, Pfizer, spent $21.9 million on lobbying in the United States
last year. The links between Pfizer and the Stockholm Network raise
legitimate concerns about lobbying activity, including the involvement of
a Pfizer executive in helping set up the think tank in the first place. We
argue that until the Network makes public the amounts from each sponsor it
will find allegations of lobbying difficult to refute, and remain unable
to claim they have 'openly declared' funding.
Disney advocates transparency yet the Stockholm Network chief
executive and her staff have made repeated edits to remove material from Wikipedia about
their organisation. This includes mention of think tanks leaving the
Network, and links to articles such as by Corporate Europe Observatory,
which had reported that the Network had responded 'seriously' to its 2005
EU funding transparency survey '...but with a remarkable determination to
avoid naming funders' .
Powerbase is, as Disney notes, a project of the non-profit
organisation Spinwatch, set up to promote transparency and shine a light
on issues, people and groups shaping the public agenda. It is not anti-
think tank or ideologically opposed as Disney contends but rather believes
it is valid to investigate potential conflicts of interest and to ask in
whose interests think tanks operate? That is why Spinwatch is pushing for
think tanks to be included (alongside PR and lobbying companies) on the
statutory register of lobbyists the coalition government is committed to
introducing.
Disney also asserts SpinWatch is 'funded by a number of foundations
with an explicit anti-globalisation agenda'. In fact, our main current
funders include the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Roddick
Foundation and Network for Social Change, none of whom hold such a stance.
Another key funder, the Isvara Foundation, has 'a deep commitment to
globalisation from below', and a strong focus on corporate accountability
and lobbying transparency. As is proper, SpinWatch publishes a full list
of funders, including amounts, on its website. In the interests of
transparency the Stockholm Network should do the same.
Email: melissa.jones@powerbase.info, david@spinwatch.org
References:
Centre for Responsive Politics, Lobbying: Pfizer Inc,
Opensecrets.org, URL:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?lname=Pfizer+Inc&year=2009,
HDisney, Revision as of 13:28 7-August-2008, Wikipedia, 7-August-
2008, URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm_Network&action=histo...,
Accessed 18-November-2010
HDisney, HDisney, Revision as of 15:25, 20-January-2009, Wikipedia,
20-January-2009, URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm_Network&diff=prev&ol...,
Accessed 18-November-2010
Stockholm Network, Revision as of 15:52,
Wikipedia,
18 July 2008,
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm_Network&diff=next&ol...
Corporate Europe Observatory, Transparency unthinkable? Financial
secrecy common among EU think tanks, Corporate Europe Observatory, July
2005, URL: http://archive.corporateeurope.org/thinktanksurvey.html#note25,
Spinwatch, Who Funds Spinwatch?,URL:
http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/about-spinwatch-mainmenu-13/3705-who-funds-
spinwatch
Competing interests: No competing interests