‘Leaving Neverland’ shows how strong conflicts of interest can be
Leaving Neverland
I recently watched the documentary Leaving Neverland, which details child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson. Watching the now-adult accusers and their families describe sleepovers with Michael Jackson, you can’t help but wonder what the parents were thinking. Who would let their 7-year old son to partake in a “friendship” with an adult man that includes spending days together at various homes, condos, and hotels, and sleeping in the same bedroom?
As far as I know, there’s no indication that the parents knew the abuse was occurring. Rather, the viewer has to presume that the parents believed what Michael Jackson was telling them: that he was just a big kid at heart, that he cared for their son, that he wanted to help their son with his career, etc.
So, a natural question is this: How were multiple sets of parents and grandparents able to be so tragically wrong about something so obvious?
They had a conflict of interest. They were benefiting enormously from their unlikely relationship with the world’s biggest pop star, and those benefits would end if he was in fact abusing their son.
They were benefiting in various ways. For one, they were starstruck by Michael Jackson and his fame and fortune. You can still see it in their eyes and hear it in their voices when they describe Neverland Ranch, and the landscaping, architecture, attractions, and amenities.
They were also experiencing many aspects of Michael Jackson’s extravagant lifestyle. They were staying at Neverland Ranch for extended periods, eating foods prepared by on-site chefs, drinking fine wines from a well-stocked cellar, and watching pre-release movies in a private theater. They were traveling the world, going to his shows, staying at expensive hotels and eating at expensive restaurants, and all of it was being paid for by the singer.
In a way, they were also looking out for their sons, who were aspiring musicians, dancers, and actors who were suddenly being personally mentored by Michael Jackson.
All of it would stop if they discovered that Michael Jackson was abusing their sons. So they didn’t discover it. They rationalized damning circumstantial evidence like locked doors and hotel rooms suspiciously far from Michael Jackson’s and convinced themselves there was nothing to worry about.
Conflicts of interest: Severe bias without bad intentions
Leaving Neverland provides a striking example of how one’s objectivity can be compromised by a conflict of interest. The human mind seems to be incredibly susceptible to reaching incorrect conclusions that would have favorable consequences.
Everyone knows what a conflict of interest is, but I think most people impute an element of intent that doesn’t have to be there (and usually isn’t). We think of things like tobacco companies “researching” smoking, and envision fat-cat smokers laughing to themselves as they fabricate data or dishonestly cherry-pick results.
We don’t think of far more common scenarios, like:
- If you work in a research group that specializes in a particular exposure X (e.g. concussions, loneliness, yoga), you have a vested interest in finding evidence that X is important , i.e. harmful or beneficial.
- Your world view may directly determine which conclusion you prefer for a research question at hand. This is especially likely if you chose your field based on your world view, which often happens.
In both cases, there’s a dead giveaway that often betrays a researcher’s conflict of interest: an unusually high level of consistency and conviction in research findings.
For example, I know of several researchers and research groups that only publish papers that show a particular effect — say, loneliness is harmful. There are really only two possibilities to explain this. Either:
- Loneliness is so harmful that it’s significantly associated with every health outcome in every dataset they ever look at.
- They look at loneliness and various health outcomes in many different datasets, with various results, but they only write papers when there’s a significant harmful effect.
Obviously, (2) is far more likely. And again I’m not saying it’s a conscious thing or there’s any element of intent. They’re probably convinced that loneliness is harmful and think they’re “raising awareness” about it through their research. But it’s bad science due to a conflict of interest.
To give an example of a high-conviction conclusion making a world-view conflict of interest obvious, I recently attended a talk in which the speaker repeatedly stated that “there are no adverse mental health consequence of getting an abortion.” Research findings are usually presented cautiously, yet this bold claim was offered with no qualifications and with 100% certainty. Of course, she hasn’t actually proven this negative result holds across all cultures and in all circumstances — it probably doesn’t. Rather, she approached a research question with a strong preference for a particular outcome, and she arrived at that conclusion.
Might world-view conflicts of interest cancel each other out?
Sure, assuming various ideologies are equally represented in the research community.
