Gambling harms researchers wary of industry-funded research

During a pivotal parliamentary health and social care committee meeting held on April 2, a coalition of leading researchers specializing in gambling harms advocated for increased restrictions on casino gaming and stringent regulations on gambling advertisements. They also raised concerns regarding the potential influence of the gambling sector on research funded by the statutory levy, highlighting the need for independent and unbiased studies on gambling-related issues.

In attendance at the meeting were esteemed experts in the field, including Sam Chamberlain, professor of psychiatry at the University of Southampton; Heather Wardle, professor of gambling research and policy at the University of Glasgow; and Lucy Hubber, director of Public Health Nottingham. Their collective insights aimed to illuminate the various risks associated with gambling in the UK and guide the government on regulatory priorities necessary for safeguarding consumers.

In an impactful first session, the panel underscored that the government should focus primarily on two critical areas: reinforcing protections around land-based slot machines and implementing stricter regulations on other casino games.

Wardle expressed her support for proposed protective measures for online slot games, such as stake limits and assessments of financial vulnerability, while asserting that similar safeguards are essential for land-based gaming machines. “The 2023 white paper offered some recommendations pertaining to the land-based sector,” she noted, “but these largely centered on the specific machines permissible within casinos and aligning the regulation of remote gambling with that of casino operations. Moreover, it proposed the introduction of betting terminals on casino floors, which raises concerns about increasing access to high-risk gambling environments.”

Challenging the Normalization of Gambling in the UK

The panel’s discussions also emphasized a pressing need for stricter regulations surrounding gambling advertising practices in the UK.

“To effectively combat the normalization of gambling in our society, we must impose much tighter restrictions,” claimed Wardle. She highlighted the disproportionate exposure of gambling advertising, which creates a misleading perception of gambling as a common behavior among the public. “Despite the pervasive nature of gambling advertisements, only 16% of the population engaged in sports betting over the past year—indicating that this remains a minority behavior.”

The dialogue often drew parallels between gambling, alcohol, and tobacco, particularly concerning their potential harm to individuals and society at large. Chamberlain added that while he does not advocate for a prohibitionist stance to entirely eradicate gambling, smoking, or drinking, he firmly supports enhanced advertising regulations. Additionally, he emphasized the importance of ensuring that the statutory levy—initiated by the government last November—is managed transparently and free from the undue influence of vested interests.

Concerns Over Industry Funding and Research Integrity

The statutory levy, aimed at generating £100 million for initiatives targeting gambling-related harms, relies on contributions from various operators within the UK gambling landscape.

Major companies have already pledged substantial funds to promote research through the Betting & Gaming Council’s voluntary levy, where up to 0.1% of their gross gambling yield is allocated to support the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms. However, the panel voiced skepticism regarding how the resources from the statutory levy might be distributed. They noted that ethical concerns have historically led researchers to hesitate in accepting funds from the gambling sector.

Addressing questions from the parliamentary committee about the sector’s influence on research into gambling harms, Chamberlain stated that researchers in this field have encountered significant challenges in obtaining funding for essential studies related to prevention, policy, education, and treatment. “This funding gap highlights a history of underinvestment from reputable funding bodies,” he stated.

“Consequently, there has been a noticeable decline in the quality of research conducted over the years, with many established researchers preferring to forgo available funding due to ethical apprehensions,” he asserted. He elaborated that while the industry contributes to various charitable organizations that redistribute funds, “it raises questions about the integrity of the research outcomes as they may not always be unbiased.”

Critical Perspectives on Research Influences

Wardle shared her previous experience receiving funding from GambleAware, a charity supported by the voluntary levy. Despite the integrity of her research process, she expressed concerns regarding the influences that pervaded the prioritization of research topics and questions. “The initial framing of research priorities often reflected industry viewpoints, affecting both the nature of consultation and how research outputs were subsequently communicated,” she noted.

She recounted an instance where a senior official from the funding body requested the removal of a critical finding from a press release related to her study. In light of such experiences, it is crucial that the statutory levy be overseen by an independent authority. Gambling minister Baroness Twycross illuminated this commitment in February, assuring that spending will be closely monitored to ensure the levy’s effectiveness in combating gambling-related harms.