The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections has indicated that functional MRI studies used to help companies develop marketing strategies do not violate federal regulations. The studies are being conducted at Emory University.
The government's inquiry was initiated when a national watchdog group sent a letter to the agency contending that Emory's use of MR scanners for marketing research does not follow the principles of beneficence.
Companies would use the research to sell products that will likely lead to diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, tobacco addiction, and alcoholism, according to Gary Ruskin, executive director of Commercial Alert, a group cofounded by Ralph Nader.
The government noted in its response to Ruskin that Investigational Review Boards do not have to consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research as among those risks that fall within the purview of its responsibilities.
Commercial Alert had previously sent a letter to Emory's president requesting him to end the fMRI studies. Emory officials defended the research, saying that all the studies have gone through the IRB and are in accordance with all standards. Radiologists tend to agree with the government.
"Any commercial research sponsor is doing research to increase market share or to somehow influence the sale of machines," said Dr. William G. Bradley Jr., radiology chair at the University of California, San Diego. "This fMRI research is legitimate -- more than most -- regardless of the source of research funds."
The research at Emory is conducted in conjunction with BrightHouse Neurostrategies Institute, which is affiliated with a marketing firm whose clients include Coca-Cola, Pepperidge Farm, K-Mart, and Home Depot.
The institute does not do product or advertising testing, said Justine Meaux, Ph.D., a research scientist and marketing strategist for BrightHouse. Rather it conducts the same kind of neuroscience research that is being done in cognitive neuroscience programs all over the country.
"We are just asking different questions that have real relevance for businesses and can give marketers a new perspective on how the brain works," Meaux said.
Meaux and Dr. Clinton Kilts, the vice chair for research in Emory's psychiatry and behavioral sciences program, presented a poster at the November meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. BOLD contrast fMR scans were acquired as 13 subjects viewed images such as fruits or vegetables, cars, sports or hobbies, and people. The subjects had previously rated these objects into five preference levels: strongly dislike, dislike, neutral, like, and strongly like.
Significant (p<0.001) activation of medial prefrontal cortex distinguished strongly liked items from other levels of preference. Ventral areas associated with reward expectancy also showed significant activation to strongly preferred items, according to Meaux.
In contrast, less preferred items were associated with striatal activity associated with reward processing. Researchers suggested that strong individual preferences reflect not only an expectation of reward but also engagement of a self-referential system not present for weakly preferred or nonpreferred items.
Meaux said that she might show a client the neural basis of preference and discuss the implications of that preference in terms of product branding and marketing strategy.
Commercial Alert's complaint is without merit, said Dr. Leonard Berlin, a legal and ethics columnist for the American Journal of Roentgenology and radiology chair at Rush North Shore Medical Center.
"I don't see how Commercial Alert or anyone else has a reasonable basis to claim that Emory's investigational study does not follow the principles of beneficence," Berlin said. "Who knows what the outcome of the studies will be, and who knows what, if any, benefit will accrue to the public at large as a result of the studies?"
For more information from the Diagnostic Imaging archives:
