Institute director, Peter Martin, stresses that his research group wants to maintain "arms length" from the coffee industry for ethical reasons. "We are setting up a foundation to oversee the funds which will be administered by independent scientific directors to ensure that there isn't even an appearance of conflict of interest," he insists.
In addition, the original article described a wide variety of studies done by many different institutions. I suppose it's possible that they're all just "studies" conducted by people in the pay of the nefarious coffee lobby, but we probably shouldn't start resorting to conspiracy theories without a little evidence.
Ben Goldacre's book (pro science, about flaws in current system of research and science reporting) "Bad Science" is w useful read.
Too late for that.
Like in government, sometimes there is quid pro quo and sometimes there isn't, but I've never heard anyone come out and say, "Whoops, you caught us! We're totally taking money to sway our opinion!"
The breadth of studies makes this look pretty legit. I just don't put much faith in obligatory denials.
Why do we assume that the Coffee Association is promoting bad science for their interests, rather than finding scientists who are working on things that relate to their business, and supporting those works?
Who else is going to fund coffee studies besides people with an interest (and money) to fund it? This is how the free market works; as long as the science is sound, who cares who is behind it? I'd rather the coffee industry pay for the studies from excess profits than it coming from the public coffers. It's not perfect, but it isn't full on corruption, either.
This is the exact equivalent of the coal industry finding the minority of scientists who think climate change is not man-made and funding their studies. The problem with this is obvious, and it is not good science.
>>This is how the free market works; as long as the science is sound, who cares who is behind it?
Often times, those who are funding the science have an impact on whether that science is sound. It's called a conflict of interest because the source of the funding can corrupt the motivation of the scientist to practice good science.
No it isn't. This isn't about coal or climate change. It's about whether or not it's ok for people to drink coffee.
If you think they've published bad science you should prove it. That's the awesome thing about science, it's refutable.
This is not research "related" to coffee, so your hypothesis is not valid in this instance.
Upton Sinclair = Chicago stockyards, abuse of animals and immigrants
Anyway, the article doesn't rest on that quote by a long shot, it goes on in enormously satisfying detail. It's a humanizing lead-in, at best. I think this is a great summary of recent research on the effects of coffee and caffeine, and it links to supporting studies on nearly every substantial point.
When you research "the effects of drinking coffee" it seems as though you are more neutral, but in fact there is still room for bias. Will you find every single effect of drinking coffee? How will you decide wether they are positive or negative? how will you decide the importance of these effects? Which effects will you research in more detail?
This weighing and ordering depends in part on the researcher, who will have a bias.
Ofcourse this is not a problem when there are lots of researchers all with their own biases, together they will paint a full picture. But if you only fund those researchers who have the kind of bias you like, then that full picture might be skewed (this is called publication bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias).
In this case people worry if the coffee research institute has hired biased researchers, rewards only the researchers who publish good things about coffee or even publishes selectively.
So it is a good thing to point out. And the argument is an attack on the reliability of the fundament for the argument, not necessarily on the researcher.
'Ad hominem' is a fallacy of relevance, meaning it involves dragging irrelevant information into the discussion to sway emotions. How is the source of the study's funding irrelevant?
tldr: Ad hominem != per-se fallacy.
My brother and sis, who both went there, love to point out that it is called "The Harvard of the South"
This next bit may be a bit cynical:
Even if they weren't funded by the coffee industry, however, they would have existential issues. If their whole purpose is to study coffee then I think that there will be a tendency to either promote coffee or to try to strike a balance. The latter is almost as bad as the former.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they would have no problem publishing nothing about negative results if that was what they got, but I would bet against it. If they get a string of negative results (and don't lose their funding), they are going to start looking for studies that have a more potential upside to balance things out.
What I tell patients is, if you like coffee, go ahead and drink as much as you want and can," says Dr. Peter Martin, director of the Institute for Coffee Studies at Vanderbilt University. He's even developed a metric for monitoring your dosage: If you are having trouble sleeping, cut back on your last cup of the day. From there, he says, "If you drink that much, it's not going to do you any harm, and it might actually help you. A lot.
What else can you expect from an "institute" with a name like this?
And, surely enough, a little more digging brings this:
Nashville's Vanderbilt University is to establish an Institute for Coffee Studies this fall, funded by $6 million from the Brazilian Coffee Association and other coffee-growing organizations.
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n3/full/nm0399_252b.html