Gambling giants invest in addiction research, raising doubts.
Controversy Surrounds Largest Donation to Gambling Addiction Non-Profit
When one of the largest international gambling addiction non-profits announced the largest donation in the organization’s history, it was praised as a welcome signal that problem gambling has become a high-priority issue. However, the $1.05 million donation to the International Center for Responsible Gaming (ICRG) has brought global concern because of the donor—Bally’s Corporation.
Bally’s is a global casino-entertainment company with a rapidly increasing presence in online sports betting and iGaming offerings and, according to its regulatory filings, expects to make up to $2.6 billion by the end of 2023. While the ICRG has lauded this donation, some are concerned about its influence on the organization’s stated goal of providing individuals with high-quality gambling addiction care.
“The gambling industry is not the appropriate vehicle to be spreading awareness on how to address and minimize gambling addiction,”
said Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a problem-gambling expert who owns a Washington lobbying organization working for solutions.
“There has been an exorbitant amount of criticism of the validity and the value that comes from them,”
she told The Epoch Times.
In a press release announcing Bally’s donation, the ICRG said the money would go to two significant research grants aimed at enhancing responsible gambling strategies and gaining a deeper understanding of the health challenges faced by young adult gamblers. A total of $402,500 would go to the Center of Excellence in Gambling Research at the University of Sydney, Australia, and $172,500 to the University of Washington for Research on Young Adult Sports Wagering.
Art Paikowsky, who became President of the ICRG in 2021, told The Epoch Times he is appreciative of donations from gambling companies, saying they show “a growing awareness of the fact that some people have been harmed by gambling. They’re starting to say ’we own a responsibility to support organizations whose intention is to help people.'”
“I can’t answer that.”
When asked about Bally’s intentions in donating more than a million dollars to the organization, Mr. Paikowsky said.
Bally’s has given smaller donations to the ICRG in the past, joined by major gambling company funders that include MGM Resorts International, Caesars Foundation, Sands Inc., Wynn Resorts, Boyd Gaming Corporation, DraftKings, FanDuel, poker machine company IGT, and several other entities. Its board of directors comprises several executives representing U.S.-based casino resorts.
“There’s no integration between our board and the scientific board. Whatever our results are, the information is unimpeachable. There is no collusion in any sense. If there were, we’d be out of business. But this firewall approach has enabled us to protect the integrity of the research.”
According to Mr. Paikowsky, the ICRG has two distinct boards—one for the non-profit organization and another for research.
“Why is the industry in the leadership?”
Ms. Doura-Schawohl, however, believes that having gambling interests anywhere on the ICRG’s board is problematic.
The donation has yet to be well received by some in Australia who see the University of Sydney’s target research as troublesome. According to a report by The Guardian, some public health experts have criticized the University for accepting money from gambling interests but add that researchers and the university believe the partnership will produce more helpful research that limits consumer harm.
According to University of Sydney Professor Sally Gaisbury, the gambling companies would not be allowed to “constrain or edit the research in any way.”
Associate Professor Sean Cowlishaw, a public health expert at the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health at Monash University in Australia, told The Guardian that the funding arrangement was “clearly opposed” to a recent parliamentary committee’s recommendations.
“It’s troubling in part because it normalizes the relationship with research institutions and the gambling industry. It’s quite unprecedented for such a prestigious academic institution in Australia to formalize this sort of funding relationship with gambling industry groups and to frame this as some form of center for excellence.”
Mr. Paikowski said that the donations from gambling companies should not be viewed as a negative but one of awareness.
“Writing a check is one way to do this.”
He added.
What measures can be taken to ensure transparency and accountability when accepting donations from industries that may have a vested interest in the outcome of the research or initiatives being funded
The scientific research.
Critics argue that this donation poses a conflict of interest for the ICRG, as it receives funding from the very industry it seeks to address. They believe that the influence of gambling companies may compromise the organization’s ability to provide unbiased and effective care for individuals struggling with gambling addiction.
“It’s like having tobacco companies fund lung cancer research. There’s an inherent conflict of interest,”
said Doura-Schawohl.
Supporters of the donation, on the other hand, argue that it is a positive step forward in encouraging the gambling industry to take responsibility for its negative impact on society. They believe that by contributing to addiction research and treatment, companies like Bally’s are acknowledging their role and working towards ensuring a safer gambling environment.
However, it is important to note that Bally’s and other gambling companies have a history of facing criticism for their marketing and promotional strategies that target vulnerable individuals and contribute to the rise in gambling addiction cases. This raises concerns about the true intentions behind their donations and whether they are truly committed to addressing the issue or simply seeking positive publicity.
The ICRG, in response to the controversy, has emphasized that the organization maintains its independence and integrity in conducting research and providing care for gambling addiction. It asserts that the funding received from gambling companies does not influence its work and that the research conducted is impartial and based on scientific principles.
“We thoroughly vet and evaluate all research projects and ensure that they align with our mission of advancing knowledge and understanding of gambling addiction,”
said Paikowsky.
Despite these assurances, the controversy remains unsettled. The debate raises important questions about the ethics of accepting donations from industries directly linked to the issues being addressed by non-profit organizations. It calls into question whether the potential benefits of these donations outweigh the risks of compromising the integrity and effectiveness of the organization’s work.
Moving forward, it is crucial for both the gambling industry and non-profit organizations to maintain transparency and ensure that their actions align with their stated goals. Open dialogue and collaboration with experts and stakeholders outside of the industry can help mitigate potential conflicts of interest and ensure that efforts to address gambling addiction are genuinely effective and impartial.
“It’s important for non-profit organizations to remain diligent and skeptical of potential conflicts of interest when accepting donations. They should carefully assess the intentions and track record of donors to ensure that their credibility and mission aren’t compromised,”
advises Doura-Schawohl.
The controversy surrounding Bally’s donation to the ICRG highlights the delicate balance organizations must strike between funding their initiatives and maintaining their independence and credibility. It serves as a reminder that the fight against gambling addiction requires constant vigilance and careful consideration of the sources and motivations behind financial support.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
