No such thing as a free donation? Research funding and conflicts of interest in nuclear weapons policy analysis
Fiche du document
22 décembre 2022
- handle: 10670/1.hmx1zx
- hal: hal-04017574
- doi: 10.1177/00471178221140000
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1177/00471178221140000
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement//759707/EU/Nuclear Weapons Choices Governing vulnerabilities between past and future/NUCLEAR
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/ , info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Mots-clés
conflicts of interest knowledge production nuclear weapons policy analysis political economy of research think tanksSujets proches
Funds Funding Methods of analysis Analysis and chemistry Analytical methods Chemical analysis Analysis methods Analysis and examinationCiter ce document
Kjølv Egeland et al., « No such thing as a free donation? Research funding and conflicts of interest in nuclear weapons policy analysis », Archive ouverte de Sciences Po (SPIRE), ID : 10.1177/00471178221140000
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Numerous scholars have in recent years concluded that the field of nuclear weapons policy analysis is plagued by widespread self-censorship, conformism, and enduring disconnects between accepted knowledge and available evidence. It has been hypothesized that this tendency is fostered in part by many analysts’ reliance on funding from donors with interests in the perpetuation of the existing nuclear order. In this article, we probe this hypothesis by investigating the financial links between foreign policy think tanks, on the one hand, and nuclear defence contractors and governments that espouse nuclear deterrence strategies, on the other. Relying on semi-structured interviews and a survey of the funding sources of 45 of the world’s top think tanks, we find, first, that effectively all think tanks in the sample accepted funding from nuclear vested interests and, second, that such ‘stakeholder funding’ has real effects on intellectual freedom. Given the widely-held view that democracy relies on intellectual independence, this finding calls for a serious debate about conflicts of interest in foreign policy analysis generally and nuclear policy analysis specifically.