Research Bias: Another example of why you must consider the source of research.

Biased research results can creep into even the most carefully designed and executed studies. That's why medical research is often double-blind, so, hopefully, the experimenter's bias can't affect the results. In public relations research, bias is endemic because most every measurement project may affect someone's job or budget, and every measurement vendor wants their results to justify their fees.

So here's a review of cell-phone health research to remind all of us just how bias can affect results ("Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies" by Anke Huss, Matthias Egger, Kerstin Hug, Karin Huwiler-Müntener, and Martin Röösli.) (Or see a summary here.) It analyzed research on the biologic effects of cell phone use, and found that industry-funded studies were far less likely to identify negative consequences than studies funded by governments and non-profits. Researchers analyzed 57 studies that appeared in the academic literature between 1995 and 2005. Only a third of the industry-funded studies identified a biologic effect with possible health consequences from exposure to cell phone radio waves, while 82% of the government- or non-profits-funded studies found such effects, as did 77% of the studies whose funding source was not identified.

How can public relations measurement identify and reduce research bias? --WTP