Plans for a \u00a310 million gambling research centre funded by a new government levy have been criticised by academics and campaigners amid fears researchers will be asked to tackle topics that play into the betting industry\u2019s hands.<\/p>\n
Under new legislation that took effect in April, all licensed operators must pay up to 1.1 per cent of profits to the government scheme, which is expected to generate between \u00a390 million and \u00a3100 million annually.<\/p>\n
A fifth of this money is being put towards research administered by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Gambling Commission, replacing an old system in which gambling researchers applied to various sector-funded charities such as\u00a0GambleAware<\/a>, which would provide grants often funded by voluntary donations from gambling companies.<\/p>\n While researchers have welcomed UKRI taking control of gambling research funding, a\u00a0recent call<\/a>\u00a0for a \u201cmultidisciplinary hub\u201d called the Gambling Harms Research Coordination Centre, worth an initial \u00a310 million, has attracted fierce criticism.<\/p>\n Some of the chosen research themes \u2013 also mentioned in a separate\u00a0\u00a31.5 million \u201crapid evidence review\u201d<\/a>\u00a0call that offers up to \u00a350,000 for project funding \u2013 and the \u201cessential\u201d requirement for researchers to set up \u201cpartnerships\u201d with \u201cnon-HEI organisations\u201d, of which \u201cindustry\u201d is one, have raised major concerns.<\/p>\n This goes against the rationale for establishing the levy, given that the previous system was criticised for supporting studies that many saw as aligned with the sector\u2019s interests, said\u00a0Will Prochaska, director of the\u00a0Coalition to End Gambling Ads<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe industry has always been very comfortable with studies focused on individuals such as that people fall into harm from gambling because they have pre-existing conditions, are from a certain demographic or even have some fault in their brain,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cAnything that suggests the industry might have some responsibility for harm, after bombarding people with ads for highly addictive products, hasn\u2019t found favour with industry-influenced research in the same way.\u201d<\/p>\n Since the research call was announced on 26 June, UKRI has\u00a0updated the details seven times<\/a>\u00a0to clarify its stance on industry engagement and the proposed research themes.<\/p>\n In a statement to Times Higher Education, it said: “We have been very clear that engagement with the gambling industry is not mandated and will only be permitted in time-limited, purpose-specific cases where it is deemed essential to achieving legitimate, high-quality research objectives to support the programme\u2019s aim to help prevent and treat gambling harm.\u201d<\/p>\n The call for industry partnerships, as first published,\u00a0referred to any enterprise that places goods or services on a market and whose commercial activities constitute more than 20 per cent of its annual operations \u2013 a definition\u00a0that applies across all sectors and is not limited to organisations within the gambling industry, it clarified.<\/p>\n This was welcomed by\u00a0Prochaska but he said it still left the door open for collaboration with gambling-funded entities that\u00a0could have a vested interest in steering research in a certain direction.<\/p>\n \u201cCampaigners have been fighting for the statutory levy for years, and when UKRI were announced as the research commissioner\u2026we thought it would be in safe hands, but as it stands their commissions risk taking the sector backwards. The research themes and the initial conflict of interest policy could have been written by the gambling industry.\u201d<\/p>\n Prochaska also questioned why the Arts and Humanities Research Council has been chosen to lead the project, calling it a \u201cmystery\u201d, given \u201cit has no track record on gambling and doesn\u2019t have the same experience of managing conflicts of interest as other research councils\u201d.<\/p>\n On the chosen research themes, UKRI stressed that the \u201cprogramme will conduct high-quality independent research across individual and structural issues to ensure that neither dimension is neglected and deliver a major and lasting contribution to the UK\u2019s understanding of gambling and gambling related harms\u201d.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, other academics argue that even tougher conflict of interest policies are required, including banning researchers previously funded by GambleAware and other sector-connected bodies from applying for the UKRI funding for at least three years \u2013 mirroring similar policies seen with tobacco\u2019s funding of research.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is generally good practice for fields where profits have funded research in harms to have a delay of five years for those who have taken money from the industry,\u201d said Rebecca Cassidy, professor of anthropology at Goldsmiths, University of London<\/a>, whose 2014 co-authored study titled\u00a0Fair Game<\/a>\u00a0called for a statutory gambling levy.<\/p>\n \u201cThe levy is a chance for a fresh start \u2013 to focus on prevention rather than harm reduction,\u201d said Cassidy, who has advised MPs on the issue, noting how research on \u201cproblem gamblers\u201d or \u201cresponsible gambling\u201d had \u201cframed the issue in a way that is favourable to the industry\u201d.<\/p>\n On this point, UKRI said:\u00a0\u201cAll applications for funding will be subject to rigorous examination by UKRI\u2019s independent peer review process and we have robust processes in place to identify and manage any conflicts of interest or evidence of undue influence arising as a result of previous funding arrangements.\u201d<\/p>\n Excluding gambling researchers previously supported by GambleAware \u2013 which is closing next year \u2013 from UKRI funding would make it impossible for nearly all established scholars to continue their work, said John McAlaney, professor of psychology at Bournemouth University<\/a> who has studied online gambling.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s hard to think of any gambling researcher who hasn\u2019t received any funding from GambleAware \u2013 it was the gambling version of the Economic and Social Research Council,\u201d he said of the limited opportunities to gain support elsewhere.<\/p>\n \u201cWe absolutely need transparency about funding \u2013 the levy helps with this \u2013 but this type of ban would be too much,\u201d McAlaney added.<\/p>\n But he believed that the legitimacy attached to UKRI-backed support could help to bring new scholars into the field anyway.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m always surprised about how few gambling researchers we have in the UK but researchers have avoided this topic. I have colleagues who are really good behavioural psychologists \u00a0who would never go near gambling research because it is too much of a risk reputationally.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI hope the new system run by UKRI encourages more people to get involved with this research, even if it makes it harder for me to get funding,\u201d McAlaney said.\u00a0<\/p>\n