NIH Halts Controversial Industry-Funded Study of Alcohol’s Health Benefits

Public health advocates had argued that the study was hopelessly compromised.

Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director of the National Institutes of HealthTom Williams/ZUMA

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Update 6/15/18: The National Institutes of Health announced on Friday that it is canceling the controversial study.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has put the brakes on a controversial study that was designed to investigate whether alcohol may have cardiovascular benefits for some people. The study was funded with more than $60 million in contributions from alcohol companies. The New York Times reported in March that officials at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, an arm of the NIH, had solicited those industry donations in violation of NIH policies.

NIH Director Francis Collins told members of a Senate subcommittee on Thursday of the research agency’s decision.

In the wake of the Times story, public health advocates had called on NIH to put an end to the study, arguing that it was hopelessly compromised by industry involvement. They said the study was clearly designed with a predetermined outcome to favor the industry’s agenda, and that it might put participants at risk. People in the 7,000-member study would be randomly assigned to consume one drink daily for six years, which is enough to slightly raise the risk of breast and other cancers.

Collins said Thursday that the NIH had ordered researchers last week to stop enrolling new participants and to halt any work on the study until the agency completed a thorough review of its origins and design. “There were sufficient concerns about that study that I would like to tell you that, one week ago, we suspended enrollment in that study on the moderate effects of alcohol on cardiovascular health while we continue the investigation and make a decision about whether the study is, in fact, still worth pursuing,” Collins said. “For NIH, our reputation is so critical, and if we are putting ourselves in a circumstance where that could be called into question, I felt that we had to look at that very seriously and come up with another strategy.”

The NIH task force looking into the study is expected to produce a report in mid-June.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest