The first step in a sociological research process is identification and development of a topic. One can begin by stating the topic idea as a question. This is followed by identification of main keywords and concepts in the question. The concepts and keywords can then be tested by looking them up in appropriate sources such as libraries. Too much information and too many sources is an indication that the topic should be narrowed down. Too little information is also an indication that the topic should be broadened.
There are unlimited topics from which a researcher can choose. Many researchers often choose topics based on the researcher’s theoretic interests. For example, if one's interest is in technology, they cannot choose to pursue a topic on poverty. This is illogical, and the researcher might not conduct the research with utmost diligence due to disinterest. Theory and research have a link that forms the heart of sociological research processes, as well as other social, natural and physical sciences. Sociologists can also choose topics based on the researcher’s social policy interest. Another source of inspiration for a research topic could be a personal experience. It could be a childhood experience, adolescence or adulthood experience. Many researchers are believed to have been first conceived due to personal experience. The experience led to the researcher developing an interest in the social policy or theory addressed by the study.
An example of research bias witnessed in the drug industry is by the drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline. The drug-maker published a seventeen-page article in the New England Journal of Medicine describing a trial that provided a comparison between three drugs used to treat diabetes. The trial came to a conclusion that Avandia, GlaxoSmithKline’s new drug, was the best performing drug. However, there existed a strong financial connection between the research and the drug manufacturer.
Aside from the fact that the trial had been bankrolled by GlaxoSmithKline, all the eleven authors had been paid considerable amounts of money by the company. Four were company employees’ holding company stock. The other seven had previously received grants and consultant fees from the company for their academic expertise.
At first sight, it was impossible to tell whether the financial ties between the drug manufacturer and the research would alter the drug test results. But sorting through data from over four thousand patients proved that the drug, Avandia, considerably increased the risk of heart attack to its consumers. The fact that this adverse effect of the drug had been omitted from the report, despite the knowledge of the drug manufacturer, raised questions about the influence drug companies, and their employees exerted over research reports (Whoriskey, 2016).
Lately, it has become common practice for drug companies to help fund medical experiments to find cures for various ailments. However, their aim is not purely in public health but also increasing profits through high-risk means. This has led to corporate interference with drug experiments often resulting in lethal consequences such as death. This is a serious case of bias in research. Companies funding drug tests engineer research that makes their drugs look better in a bid to promote their drugs and gain more profits.
As stated above, the drug industry’s influence over research has led to some biased decisions which resulted in fatalities. As a consumer, I am of the opinion that this influence should be scaled down. If possible, the funding of drug tests and research should be assigned to nonprofit organizations that do not have any financial ties with the researchers conducting the drug tests. This would make the process more transparent hence increasing the credibility of drug test results.
References
Whoriskey, P. (2016). As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias. Washington Post. Retrieved 23 April 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html
