Gift Acceptance Policy

HHRA is mindful of skepticism associated with public-health research sponsored by for-profit companies and corporations. Concern is especially acute in the case of projects in which a for-profit corporate donor: (a) retains the ability to influence the conduct of the science, and when and how research outcomes are reported publicly, and (b) stands to benefit or potentially lose something of value (e.g. money, a marketing advantage, intellectual property) as a result of the outcome of a specific research project or program.

Some foundations and trusts are organized as not-for-profit corporations and are not associated with the same problems and skepticism.

Yes, several. For-profit corporate funding often comes with conditions. Some grant documents specify details of experimental design, identify data that can be gathered and questions addressed, while also specifically ruling out the collection of other information and certain analytical activities. 

Corporate grant provisions often require that preliminary results must be shared first, and privately, with for-profit corporate sponsors. Sometimes contracts assure sponsors a chance to review publications before submission. In other cases, intellectual property provisions are included that limit what scientists can do with new research data and insights. 

HHRA will not accept such conditions.

Studies show that for-profit corporate funding does sometimes impact the outcome of research and how it is reported and used. A key goal of HHRA’s Gift Acceptance Policy, coupled with our commitment to transparency and accountability, is avoiding any such preconditions, perceptions, and concerns.

People, foundations, and companies donate funding for research on issues and challenges they care about. Through their donations, they have a direct impact on the topics that scientists have an opportunity to work on and address. But once funding is disbursed, donor involvement should come to an end and donors should exercise no ongoing control over how research is conducted and/or how results are communicated. HHRA’s policy is designed to assure this outcome.

The task of assuring that HHRA supports high-quality, rigorous science can best be assured through full and open adherence to conflict of interest and funding disclosures, peer-review, and engagement with the scientific and other communities interested in HHRA’s work.

Over time the quality, balance, and impact of our science will determine whether questions and concerns over bias or objectivity become an impediment in our work. If such concerns arise, HHRA will revisit this and other relevant policies and make needed adjustments promptly.

For three primary reasons. First, corporations have both resources and motivation to invest in independent public-health research, and many are aligned with the goals of HHRA and willing to abide by HHRA’s gift policy.

Second, individuals and companies engaged in the food and agricultural sectors have specialized knowledge about the causes of problems that arise as a result of farming system choices and related public policies and priorities. They also often have unique insights into how farmers can lighten agriculture’s environmental footprint and/or pursue options to improve food safety and food nutritional quality.

Third, farmers and ranchers, corporate officials, technical specialists working for companies, salespeople, and support personnel doing business along farm-to-consumer value chains will make future decisions to embrace or resist change. Cooperative work with HHRA and routine exchange of information will hopefully deepen their understanding of public health benefits attainable through farming system innovation. Likewise, their involvement in our work will sharpen our understanding of hurdles slowing down the adoption of new systems and technology known to improve public health outcomes and enhance environmental quality.

Over time the quality, balance, and impact of our science will determine whether questions and concerns over bias or objectivity become an impediment in our work. If such concerns arise, HHRA will revisit this and other relevant policies and make needed adjustments promptly.

Yes, as long as donors are willing to adhere to HHRA’s Gift Acceptance Policy.

Yes. A Board member, Robin Greenwald, is a partner at Weitz & Luxenberg and has been involved with pesticide litigation brought by the firm, and most recently, cases focused on Roundup herbicide and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The HHRA Executive Director Charles Benbrook has worked for many years as an expert witness in cases involving pesticide use, regulation, and impacts. He continues to serve as an expert witness in cases involving glyphosate-based herbicides, chlorpyrifos, soil fumigants, and paraquat.

When an individual associated with HHRA chooses to participate in litigation, whether for plaintiffs or the defense, such participation must be disclosed to the Board, acknowledged on the HHRA website, and accurately disclosed in peer-reviewed papers.

HHRA regards engagement in regulatory processes and judicial proceedings an additional and important way that HHRA’s research, expertise, and insights can promote positive public health and policy outcomes.

Litigation can trigger discernible changes, for better and for worse, in the public-health outcomes arising from farm production systems and the way food is processed and manufactured. Through our work and the sharing of knowledge, HHRA strives to tip the scales toward positive outcomes in government, the private sector, and sometimes in judicial proceedings.

The Congress and government regulatory agencies are sometimes unable to resolve controversies over how to address chemical exposures and other workplace risks. As a result, litigation is sometimes pursued to clarify what current laws call for and to determine whether for-profit corporations bear responsibility when certain products are linked to adverse health or environmental outcomes.

In litigation, society benefits from the participation of vetted experts who are able to provide expert testimony to help judges and jury members understand factual and scientific issues. Court proceedings assure that each side has a fair chance to make their case.

Every statement of fact and opinion shared by an expert with a judge or jury is first vetted by the court to assure the data and opinions are based on accepted scientific methods and valid and relevant data. And when presented at trial, all facts and opinions are open to direct challenge by the opposing side. There is no hiding place for those offering cherry-picked data, bogus methods and inappropriate statistical tests, and opinions not supported by substantial and credible evidence.

The court-supervised back and forth between experts working on behalf of plaintiffs and defense is the judicial-process equivalent of peer review. The process is rigorous and detail oriented. It plays a valuable role in helping judges and juries make often difficult decisions as they weigh the facts of a case, the soundness of the expert testimony, and whether the evidence presented during a trial is sufficient to sustain the burden of proof established in applicable law.