From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia White hat bias
White hat bias
White hat bias is a phrase coined by Public Health re- but that publication and citation bias existed against neg-
searchers David Allison and Mark Cope to describe “bias ative findings, and as predicted from a WHB effect, Alli-
leading to the distortion of information in the service of son became the subject of an ABC report condemning the
what may be perceived to be righteous ends”.[1] influence of industry on diet science.[3]
This initial paper contrasted the treatment of re- Allison and Cope suggest that science might be pro-
search on the effects of nutritively-sweetened beverages tected better from these effects by author’s and journals
and breastfeeding on obesity. They contrasted evidence practicing higher standards of probity and humility in
which implicated these behaviors as risk and protective citing the literature. Young and Ioannidis[4] discuss re-
factors (respectively), comparing the treatment given to lated concepts, framing scientific information and joun-
evidence for each conclusion. Their analyses confirmed rnals in the context of an economic good, with the goal
that papers reporting null effects of soft-drinks or breast- being to transfer knowledge from scientists to its con-
feeding on obesity were cited significantly less often than sumers, suggesting that acknowledging the full spectrum
expected, and, when cited, were interpreted in ways that of effects on publication and treating addressing the ef-
mislead readers about the underlying finding. Positive fects as a moral imperative may aid this goal.
papers were cited more frequently than expected. For in-
stance, of 207 citations of two papers finding no effects of
sugared soft drink consumption on obesity, the majority
References
of citations (84 and 66%) were misleadingly positive. Al- [1] M. B. Cope and D. B. Allison. (2010). White hat bias:
lison and Cope explained this bias in terms of "righteous examples of its presence in obesity research and a
zeal, indignation toward certain aspects of industry", and call for renewed commitment to faithfulness in
other factors. research reporting. International Journal of Obesity,
A meta-analysis had been reported showing that 34,
34 84-8; discussion 83
industry-funded studies reported smaller effects than did [2] L. R. Vartanian, M. B. Schwartz and K. D. Brownell.
non-industry-funded studies,[2] the implication being (2007). Effects of soft drink consumption on
that industry funding lead researchers to bias their re- nutrition and health: a systematic review and
sults in favor of the funder’s presumed commercial inter- 97,
meta-analysis. American journal of public health, 97
est. Allison and Cope’s reanalysis of these data indicat- 667-75
ed that it was poor-studies that found larger effects, and [3] “Is ‘Big Food’s’ Big Money Influencing the Science
that the industry-funded studies were better larger and of Nutrition” ABC video
better run: A finding consistent with a White hat bias, [4] N. S. Young, J. P. Ioannidis and O. Al-Ubaydli.
and suggesting that the true effect of sugar-sweetened (2008). Why current publication practices may
beverages is smaller than most studies report. Paradoxi- distort science. PLoS medicine, 5, e201 link
cally, having shown that industry studies were well run
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_hat_bias&oldid=456442290"
Categories:
• Public health
• Bias
This page was last modified on 20 October 2011 at 00:31. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of
the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.Contact us
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Mobile view
1