51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Plans for a ?10 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¡¯s hands.

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 ?90 million and ?100 million annually.

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?, which would provide grants often funded by voluntary donations from gambling companies.

While researchers have welcomed UKRI taking control of gambling research funding, a??for a ¡°multidisciplinary hub¡± called the Gambling Harms Research Coordination Centre, worth an initial ?10 million, has attracted fierce criticism.

Some of the chosen research themes ¨C also mentioned in a separate??call that offers up to ?50,000 for project funding ¨C and the ¡°essential¡± requirement for researchers to set up ¡°partnerships¡± with ¡°non-HEI organisations¡±, of which ¡°industry¡± is one, have raised major concerns.

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¡¯s interests, said?Will Prochaska, director of the?.

¡°The 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,¡± he said.

¡°Anything that suggests the industry might have some responsibility for harm, after bombarding people with ads for highly addictive products, hasn¡¯t found favour with industry-influenced research in the same way.¡±

Since the research call was announced on 26 June, UKRI has??to clarify its stance on industry engagement and the proposed research themes.

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¡¯s aim to help prevent and treat gambling harm.¡±

The call for industry partnerships, as first published,?referred 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 ¨C a definition?that applies across all sectors and is not limited to organisations within the gambling industry, it clarified.

This was welcomed by?Prochaska but he said it still left the door open for collaboration with gambling-funded entities that?could have a vested interest in steering research in a certain direction.

¡°Campaigners have been fighting for the statutory levy for years, and when UKRI were announced as the research commissioner¡­we 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.¡±

Prochaska also questioned why the Arts and Humanities Research Council has been chosen to lead the project, calling it a ¡°mystery¡±, given ¡°it has no track record on gambling and doesn¡¯t have the same experience of managing conflicts of interest as other research councils¡±.

On the chosen research themes, UKRI stressed that the ¡°programme 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¡¯s understanding of gambling and gambling related harms¡±.

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 ¨C mirroring similar policies seen with tobacco¡¯s funding of research.

¡°It 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,¡± said Rebecca Cassidy, professor of anthropology at Goldsmiths, 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of London, whose 2014 co-authored study titled??called for a statutory gambling levy.

¡°The levy is a chance for a fresh start ¨C to focus on prevention rather than harm reduction,¡± said Cassidy, who has advised MPs on the issue, noting how research on ¡°problem gamblers¡± or ¡°responsible gambling¡± had ¡°framed the issue in a way that is favourable to the industry¡±.

On this point, UKRI said:?¡°All applications for funding will be subject to rigorous examination by UKRI¡¯s 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.¡±

Excluding gambling researchers previously supported by GambleAware ¨C which is closing next year ¨C from UKRI funding would make it impossible for nearly all established scholars to continue their work, said John McAlaney, professor of psychology at Bournemouth 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ who has studied online gambling.

¡°It¡¯s hard to think of any gambling researcher who hasn¡¯t received any funding from GambleAware ¨C it was the gambling version of the Economic and Social Research Council,¡± he said of the limited opportunities to gain support elsewhere.

¡°We absolutely need transparency about funding ¨C the levy helps with this ¨C but this type of ban would be too much,¡± McAlaney added.

But he believed that the legitimacy attached to UKRI-backed support could help to bring new scholars into the field anyway.

¡°I¡¯m 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 ?who would never go near gambling research because it is too much of a risk reputationally.¡±

¡°I 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,¡± McAlaney said.?

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com