Chat U2A: human operator prompt first, then AI agent answer. Width: 80 columns. *************** Gemini about Transparency in Scientific Funding **************** Chatbot: Gemini 2.5 flash Created: 7th June 2025 Published 7th June 2025 Attachment: none ================================================================================ How do you think about this post? (ignore the 1. and 2. links) SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING OF A STUDY PAPER SHOULD BE DISCLOSED LIKE BIBLIOGRAPHY I agree that knowing the source of funding is essential and should be included in every paper like we usually do with bibliography. We do bibliography not just to count how many times a paper or an author got hits but to track down the source of knowledge and have a tree of them. It is essential because when we find a mistake in one of them, we can track down its impact in all the other papers that have been influenced by it. From a scientific point of view, unreliably bibliography is equivalent to jeopardise the fix & progress cycle. In this post are cited two topics. The sugar promotion into the food industry and the AI adoption hype. Let me propose you two articles of mine about, in the next comment (here below, due to # of chars limitation) ABOUT SUGAR AND AI HYPE TOPICS In this post are cited two topics. The sugar promotion into the food industry and the AI adoption hype. Let me propose you two articles of mine about, in the next comment (here below) The role of the sugar in human food, might be underestimated as responsible for maligne cancer outbreaks. A single interpretation mistake can have caused a chain of failures in science. I may be right or wrong, but this is the kind of example I was writing above about bibliography. (auto-translation available on the website top-bar) 1. lnkd.in/d7JzgtbF Instead, this is how AI can deal with unfiltered data and leveraging a progressive improving cycle makes them useful to feed an AI system. 2. lnkd.in/dVE-8E2M This second article shows the importance of having a self-improving process cycle. Which directly refers by analogy to the fix & progress cycle and it raises a question: we know how to do right when dealing with stuff (data management) but we fail when dealing with systems (science & university). --AI-- This is a thought-provoking post that brings up a really important point about transparency in scientific research. The core argument is that the source of funding for a study paper should be disclosed as routinely as a bibliography. The reasoning behind this is solid: * Tracking the source of knowledge: Just as a bibliography helps trace the lineage of ideas and information, funding disclosure would provide another crucial layer of context. * Identifying and mitigating errors: If a flaw is found in research, knowing the funding source could help in understanding potential biases or influences, and subsequently, tracking the impact of that flawed research on other studies that relied on it. This directly supports the "fix & progress" cycle of science. * Ensuring scientific integrity: The post implies that undisclosed funding sources can "jeopardize the fix & progress cycle," which is a valid concern. Financial interests can, at times, consciously or unconsciously, influence research outcomes or their interpretation. The examples of "sugar promotion into the food industry" and "AI adoption hype" are good illustrations of areas where potential biases due to funding could be a significant concern. The point about a "single interpretation mistake" regarding sugar potentially causing a "chain of failures in science" powerfully underscores the need for thoroughness and transparency. The comparison between managing data effectively with AI and the potential shortcomings in "science & university systems" is also interesting. It raises a valid question about why we can implement self-improving cycles in data management but seem to struggle with similar processes in the broader scientific ecosystem. Overall, the post makes a strong case for increased transparency in scientific funding. It highlights how such disclosure isn't just about accountability, but also about strengthening the reliability and integrity of the scientific process itself. --HO-- What do you think about this proposal emerged by the following comments exchange? Fionagh Thomson wrote: <> - nice to know, but also in every article, specifically? Time to time, I read some scientific articles. Sometimes, those who wrote it, implicitly acknowledge the readers the source of funding. Sometimes, especially when it is a public foundation, they clearly state something like a budget (or a medal). However, by my own experience (which can be limited or not be aligned with the mainstream aka be a corner case), the bibliography section is usually standardised, while the chain of funding sources is not. Company ($$$$) -> NGO ($$$) -> University ($$) -> Paper ($). This above is an exemplified disclosing chain of funding sources. Because, the study behind the paper received a tiny financial support but the university which provides a stable position to the author of the paper might be involved in a way deeper. --AI-- This comment exchange brings up a critical nuance to the original proposal about disclosing funding sources: the idea of a "chain of funding" and the distinction between direct paper-specific funding and broader institutional support. Fionagh Thomson's initial comment, "They are disclosed in all reputable journals," is a good starting point. Indeed, most reputable journals do require authors to disclose direct funding for the research presented in the paper, usually in a dedicated "Funding" or "Acknowledgements" section. This often includes grant numbers and funding agency names. However, the subsequent comments from the original poster (who is likely the same person as in the initial prompt) highlight a significant gap: 1. "Nice to know, but also in every article, specifically?": This implicitly questions how consistently and comprehensively this disclosure happens. While a journal might have a policy, the actual implementation and level of detail can vary. 2. Implicit vs. Explicit Disclosure: The observation that some authors "implicitly acknowledge" funding versus "clearly state something like a budget (or a medal)" suggests a lack of standardization in how this information is presented. 3. The "Chain of Funding" Problem: This is the most crucial point. The example provided: o Company ($$$$) -> NGO ($$$) -> University ($$) -> Paper ($). This illustrates that the direct funding received for the paper itself might be a small part of a much larger financial ecosystem. A university that provides a stable position, resources, and infrastructure to a researcher might be heavily funded by entities with specific interests, even if those interests don't directly fund the specific paper being published. Why this "chain of funding" matters: * Indirect Influence: While a company might not directly fund a particular paper on, say, the health effects of a certain food ingredient, if that company heavily funds the university department where the researcher works, there could be subtle, unconscious, or even systemic pressures that influence research directions, methodology, or interpretation of results. * Reputational Alignment: Universities and NGOs also have reputations and financial incentives. If they are significantly supported by certain industries, their overall research output might lean in directions favorable to those industries, even if individual papers maintain independence. * Transparency and Public Trust: The public increasingly demands to know who benefits from and influences research, especially when it concerns public health, environmental issues, or rapidly evolving technologies like AI. A simple "this paper was funded by X grant" might not be sufficient to reveal the full picture of potential influences. * Defining "Conflict of Interest": Current conflict of interest (COI) statements often focus on direct financial ties of the authors to entities that could gain or lose from the research. The "chain of funding" proposal expands this to institutional ties, which is a much broader and more complex area. Challenges of implementing a "chain of funding" disclosure: * Complexity: Tracing every dollar back through multiple layers of funding for an institution would be incredibly complex and potentially impractical. * Data Availability: Universities and NGOs might not always be transparent about all their funding sources, especially private donations or proprietary research agreements. * Defining "Influence": At what point in the chain does funding become an "influence" that needs to be disclosed? This would require clear guidelines and potentially subjective judgments. * Burdensome for Researchers: Adding more disclosure requirements could become overly burdensome for researchers already navigating complex publication processes. Conclusion: The proposal for disclosing a "chain of funding" goes beyond current standard practices in many journals and raises a legitimate and important point about the broader context of research funding. While the implementation challenges are significant, the underlying concern about potential indirect influences on research, especially through institutional funding, is valid and warrants further discussion within the scientific community and among policymakers. It pushes the conversation about transparency from just "who paid for this paper?" to "who supports the ecosystem in which this paper was produced?"