Early career researchers are often faced with a “devil’s choice” of either taking funding from the industry – knowing there will be restrictive permutations attached to it – or not doing any research at all because there are no other funding sources.
This was the subject of a recent
Goldsmiths University event called Dangerous Consumption. Whilst there are parallels between gambling, alcohol and tobacco research in terms of the respective industry’s capacity to control the research agenda through commissioned work, gambling is unique in that a tobacco or alcohol researcher has viable, alternative funding sources whereas commissioning for gambling research comes only through the industry-controlled Responsible Gambling Trust.
One might argue that the gambling industry learnt from the mistakes of the tobacco industry, which failed to monopolise the control of funding research.
This year, the Responsible Gambling Trust raised just under £6.3m from the industry – around 0.1% of its profits – to commission research, education and treatment programmes relating to gambling addiction. The research budget of £1.3m comprises around a fifth of that funding, with £850,000 set aside for machines research.
The programme of research into machines was a result of political pressure, with the initial phase of commissioning coinciding with the Government’s decision to include fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in their Triennial Review of Stakes and Prizes in April 2013.
Neil Goulden, in his capacity as Chair of the Responsible Gambling Trust and Chair of the Association of British Bookmakers, was able to meet with Ministers prior to the consultation, resulting in a decision to reduce the £100 maximum stake being put back until after the Responsible Gambling Trust’s research had concluded.
However, it has recently emerged that the Responsible Gambling Trust’s research will not look at the impact of the £100 maximum stake on FOBTs, nor will it look at whether having such a high maximum stake on such an addictive product is more conducive to harm.
Instead of determining whether players have more of a propensity to stake up on FOBTs – and therefore adding to the evidence base to reduce the maximum stake – the Responsible Gambling Trust has instead commissioned their stable of industry-friendly academics to determine “what measures might limit harmful play without impacting on those who do not exhibit harmful behaviours”.
This excludes the impact of reducing the stake, despite the Australian Productivity Commission stating that a $1 cap on bets on “Pokie” machines – which are similar to FOBTs –
would be the most effective measure to protect problem gamblers, without impacting leisure players.
The Responsible Gambling Trust commissions the same academics to carry out work that is set within such narrow parameters that it does not harm the interests of the gambling industry, which both funds and runs the charity.
Neil Goulden, who is the Emeritus Chair of Gala Coral – and their former CEO – is the Chair of the Responsible Gambling Trust. Richard Glynn, the CEO of Ladbrokes, is a trustee. If there is a consensus that the gambling industry should pay for research, they should not be involved in its commissioning. Funds should be handed to a separate commissioning body, and access for researchers should be written into licensing, not granted to “friendly” researchers on an ad hoc basis,
as the Fair Game report argued.
The industry control at the Responsible Gambling Trust also extends to treatment. Simon Perfitt, who had been a resident at Gordon Moody,
could not disclose in promotional material that his problem had been specifically with FOBTs.
The only way we can ensure early career researchers are not faced with a “devil’s choice” is by introducing a separate, independent body for commissioning and limiting the role of the Responsible Gambling Trust to fundraising. The alternative is to introduce a statutory levy, or threaten the industry with such a prospect, to ensure more than 0.1% of their profits are donated for research.
Access for researchers must also be written into licensing to ensure the industry do not have leverage in dictating the research agenda. Otherwise, the Responsible Gambling Trust will continue to be used by the industry as a lobbying tool, as it has been since its inception.