1. Peter J. Adams School of Population Health

3. PROFITPROFIT NOT MUCH HEAPS LOW HIGH ADDICTIVE NON-ADDICTIVE

4.  Hard to resist  Money exchange establishes expectations & obligations  Reinforced by multiple exchanges

7.  “I didn’t really see that!”  “We’ve done so much work already”  “Let’s just pretend”

8.  “Maybe it’s not that bad”  “Gambling has its positive sides”  “Only a small number have problems”

9.  “Money is sitting there”  “This funding will save lives”  “If we don’t get it, somebody else less deserving will”

10.  “Be realistic”  “To get things done you need to make some unpopular choices”  “You have to be in to win”

11.  Messages favoured my ambitions  Ethical perspective minimised  Need an outside reference point to gauge my views

12. SIMPLETRANSACTION FUNCTIONS IN A WIDER ARENA

14. TobaccoAlcoholGamblingIndustriesTobaccoAlcoholGamblingIndustries Political Chain of Engagement Publiccommunicationstrategies Lobbying & PR companies Producer & retail associations Relationshipbuildingactivities Politicians POLICYMAKERS

15. Public Good Chain of Engagement Corporate social responsibility Health & community programs Social aspects & public relations organisations Media coverage Public consultation TobaccoAlcoholGamblingIndustriesTobaccoAlcoholGamblingIndustries POLICYMAKERS

16. Knowledge Chain of Engagement Priority setting processes Researchers & research organizations Funding & commissioning processes Communication & dissemination Government officials TobaccoAlcoholGamblingIndustriesTobaccoAlcoholGamblingIndustries POLICYMAKERS

17. TobaccoAlcoholGamblingIndustriesTobaccoAlcoholGamblingIndustries Knowledge Chain Public Good Chain Political Chain Politicians PublicConsultation GovernmentOfficials

18. 5 Relationship Risks 1 Ethical Risks 4 Governance Risks 3 Reputational Risks 2 Contributory Risks

19. 1 Ethical Risks Benefiting from Deprived & Addicted Benefiting from Deprived & Addicted Exploiting Vulnerable Groups Exploiting Vulnerable Groups Money Derived From Harm Money Derived From Harm

20. 2 Contributory Risk Contributing to Sales Contributing to Sales Improving Public Profile Improving Public Profile Positive view of Policy Makers Positive view of Policy Makers

21. 3 Reputational Risks Judgement of Colleagues Judgement of Colleagues Funders Judgement of Funders Stakeholders Judgement of Stakeholders

22. 4 Governance Risks Creeping Funding Reliance Creeping Funding Reliance PerceivedDependence Perceived Dependence Increasing Silence & Compliance Increasing Silence & Compliance

23. 5 Relationship Risks Conflict between Colleagues Conflict between Colleagues Sections Conflict between Sections Silencing & Leaving Silencing & Leaving

27. Intensity of Relationship Continuum of Moral Jeopardy

28. OIL LOTTERIES ALCOHOL TOBACCO ARMAMENTS SLOTS PORN PHARMACEUTICALS

29. Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Extremely Primary Concern

30. P urpose E xtent R elevant-harm I dentifiers L ink

31.  Degree to which purposes between funder and recipient diverge  How do purposes match?  E.g. smoking cessation researcher funded by tobacco company

32.  Degree to which the recipient is reliant on this source  What percentage of funding?  E.g. Genetics researcher unwilling to question source when funding increases

33.  Degree of harm associated with this form of consumption  Some products are less harmful than others  E.g. researcher accepts money from lotteries but not slots

34.  Degree to which the recipient is visibly identified with the funder  Branding using names, logos, advertising & other promotional linkages  E.g. new laboratory with sign acknowledging brewery funding

35.  Nature and directness of the link between recipient & funder  Use of mediating bodies or contracts?  E.g. Earmarked alcohol funding channelled through government departmen

36. LOWRISKMODRISKHIGHRISK EXTR. H. RISK Group 1: A public health researcher receiving funds directly from a tobacco company in publicly visible way Group 2: A genetics project receiving half its funds from a brewery Group 3: Research equipment funded partially from donations from a gambling machine trust Group 4: A symposium funded by a small grant anonymously from lotteries

37. Class C Pornography, Plastic Surgery, Oil Class C Pornography, Plastic Surgery, Oil Class B Psychotropics, Lotteries, Fast Food Class B Psychotropics, Lotteries, Fast Food Class A Tobacco, Armaments, Slots, Alcohol Class A Tobacco, Armaments, Slots, Alcohol

38.  Learnt much from tobacco  Easy to plug-in without realizing wider consequences  Promoting open dialogue about sources is key  Need ethical benchmarks & codes of practice