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.

Objective: One research group has recently published three articles on the ways in which alcohol companies and industry social aspects organizations (SAOs) communicate with the public. These articles show how the information produced by the alcohol industry works to produce doubt and uncertainty. Replies from SAOs were published in the respective scientific journals. This article examines these "moments of controversy," asking in what ways, on which grounds, do the SAOs contest the claims made about them?, Method: Three moments of controversy were examined, prompted by articles on SAO information on cancer, on use of Twitter, and on pregnancy and fertility. The articles ( n = 3), the responses from the SAOs ( n = 8), and the replies by authors Petticrew and colleagues ( n = 4), were analyzed, identifying the rhetorical repertoires at work., Results: The responses by SAOs use two main strategies: 1. Posing narrow questions of accuracy rather than engaging with the overall findings of the articles on the context and framing of information; and 2. Making normative claims about what it is to do good science, suggesting that the articles and their findings are not. The second strategy questions the very legitimacy of research examining SAOs. The credibility of being published in the scientific literature affords the responses themselves a rhetorical function, a resource for later use to signal doubt and uncertainty., Conclusions: The SAO interventions in the scientific literature generate controversies. Furthermore, the published traces they leave in the scientific literature enhance SAOs' ability to make credible claims that the original findings were controversial.