Search

Objective: Following recent work examining alcohol industry involvements in science, this is a case study that examines the ways in which the alcohol research community engages in "boundary work"--in which scientists define and defend the demarcation between their community of knowledge makers and others, justifying their claim to legitimacy and authority--in response to alcohol industry-sponsored interventions. The case here involves an economist who disputes the research consensus positions and policy recommendations of the field, having been funded by the key global alcohol industry political organization. Method: We examine the "functional" statements of both sides of this issue to show the ways in which the scientific and policy consensus of the field is disputed. Three examples of the responses of the alcohol research community, presenting different types of responses, are interrogated. Results: In late career and retirement, this economist published extensively in alcohol and health economics journals within the peer-reviewed literature on two key topics in alcohol policy: pricing/taxation measures and advertising restrictions. These commentaries, reviews, and correspondence propose alternative policies favored by the alcohol industry, which are at odds with the alcohol public health evidence base. The three examples examined of boundary work performed by alcohol public health researchers illustrate the variety of ways in which the legitimacy of these interventions has been questioned: on technical grounds, on explicitly normative grounds, and as a body of work as a whole. Conclusions: Interventions in the scientific literature create important resources for alcohol industry actors to oppose alcohol policy measures globally. The alcohol research field may benefit from discussion about how to respond to these kinds of interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]