FREE NEWSLETTER: Econintersect sends a nightly newsletter highlighting news events of the day, and providing a summary of new articles posted on the website. Econintersect will not sell or pass your email address to others per our privacy policy. You can cancel this subscription at any time by selecting the unsubscribing link in the footer of each email.

posted on 17 December 2015

What To Make Of Tobacco Industry Research Declarations Of 'No Conflicts Of Interest'?

from The Conversation

-- this post authored by Simon Chapman, University of Sydney

Picture a scientist employed by a pharmaceutical company publishing research results that were important bricks in a wall of evidence that could massively benefit their employer down the track.

Imagine a geologist employed by a fracking corporation publishing data showing that fracking posed few, if any, risks to adjacent water tables, again helping make the case for a policy allowing uninhibited fracking.

Now imagine, in both cases, that the researchers concerned, while not concealing their employers' details, declared that they had no conflicting or competing interests. You could hear the incredulous laughter resonating throughout the research community and beyond.

Two such statements recently caught my eye at the end of research papers authored by people employed by or contracted to tobacco companies.

In a 2014 paper, scientists from Philip Morris reported what happened to rats forced to inhale a prototype "modified risk" tobacco product. Compared to a standard cigarette, the rats had "much smaller" gene expression changes when exposed to e-cigarettes. The Philip Morris authors declared simply that "there are no conflicts of interest."

And in a 2015 paper on e-cigarettes that concluded "e-cigarette aerosol showed little cytotoxicity", the authors declared:

The authors report no conflicts of interest and are employees of British American Tobacco or contracted by British American Tobacco. ... All work conducted was funded by British American Tobacco.

What are we to make of these statements?

Having any sort of financial relationship with a funder with deep commercial interests in the outcomes of the research is the most basic example of a conflict of interest that needs declaring. And of all the types of financial relationships that authors should declare, employment by a company which may directly benefit is peerless.

The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) argues that:

Commercial sources of funding, by companies that sell drugs and medical devices, are generally seen as the most concerning, perhaps because of many well-publicized examples of bias related to ties to industry.

WAME does not explicitly mentioned tobacco companies, but the history of that industry's conduct in this regard is long and well documented.

Professor Lisa Bero, co-chair of the global Cochrane collaboration and now at Sydney University's Charles Perkins Centre where she specialises in studying bias in research, has reviewed the history of how the tobacco industry uses research to pursue its ambitions and manipulate research on the risks of smoking. She has also found broadly similar strategies in at least five industries: tobacco, pharmaceutical, lead, vinyl chloride, and silicosis-generating industries.

These include:

  • manipulation of the research question to obtain predetermined results

  • funding and publishing research that supports industry interests

  • suppression of unfavourable research

  • distorting the public discourse about research

  • changing or setting scientific standards to serve corporate interests

  • disseminating favourable research directly to decision-makers and the public, bypassing the normal channels of scientific discourse.

In 1977, for example, Philip Morris internal correspondence shows a study investigating nicotine withdrawal was given the go-ahead but that officials discussed burying the work if "the results with nicotine are similar to those gotten with morphine and caffein (sic)".

Philip Morris internal correspondence

The industry understood the extreme sensitivity of such internal correspondence and documents for litigation and subsequently embarked on the now infamous large-scale Orwellian-named document "retention" process of document destruction.

The track record of the tobacco industry in dubious research and research communication practices makes it globally unique in being the only industry which many universities ban from research engagement. Google "university tobacco research funding policies" and you can spend hours reading the list of prestigious universities which have done this.

Conflict of interest declarations are not admissions of wrong-doing. There is, of course, plenty of sound science conducted inside industry and I make no comment here about the quality of the science in the two papers I have named.

Competing interest declarations are, rather, alerts to editors, reviewers and readers to consider the provenance and context of the work that has been done and to give it particularly close critical attention in light of those contexts.

Declarations also allow researchers to conduct meta-analyses of industry funded and non-funded research on the same areas to see if the funding source is associated with the study outcomes. Repeatedly and unsurprisingly, this has been found to be the case with tobacco, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, food and others.

For this reason, the Cochrane community's policy on who is allowed to sponsor, author, review and edit reviews of evidence in medical science explicitly excludes all those with any commercial interests.

Perhaps the tobacco industry scientists on these two papers hold the interesting view that by stating their company affiliations, this entitled them to state that they had no conflicts: by naming their employers, this somehow gave them a free pass to say they were unconflicted. The "no conflicts of interest" statement is traditionally used by authors who in fact have no competing interests.

Some research journals such as PLoS Medicine, PLoS One, PLoS Biology, the Journal of Health Psychology, all journals published by the American Thoracic Society and Tobacco Control now refuse to consider manuscripts with tobacco industry funding because of the long history of misconduct.

When I edited Tobacco Control for a decade, I declined to introduce such a policy, perhaps naively believing that rigorous peer review would be a fail-safe.

Journals that accept manuscripts from tobacco industry employees and sponsored scientists need to consider their position regarding their competing interests declaration policies in cases such as these. Being employed by a company with direct commercial interests in the research in question should never allow authors to mock the process by declaring they have no conflicting interests.

The ConversationSimon Chapman, Professor of Public Health, University of Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments <<<<<<

Click here for Historical News Post Listing

Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted.  As the internet is a "war zone" of trolls, hackers and spammers - Econintersect must balance its defences against ease of commenting.  We have joined with Livefyre to manage our comment streams.

To comment, using Livefyre just click the "Sign In" button at the top-left corner of the comment box below. You can create a commenting account using your favorite social network such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn or Open ID - or open a Livefyre account using your email address.

You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.

Econintersect Contributors


Print this page or create a PDF file of this page
Print Friendly and PDF

The growing use of ad blocking software is creating a shortfall in covering our fixed expenses. Please consider a donation to Econintersect to allow continuing output of quality and balanced financial and economic news and analysis.

Take a look at what is going on inside of
Main Home
Analysis Blog
The Truth About Trade Agreements - and Why We Need Them
Big Mess in Italy
News Blog
Early Headlines: Asia Stocks Up, Oil Down, House Has Stopgap $ Bill, Trump Sold All Stock, Euro Holding On, May Doubles Down, India Economy Struggles, Oz GDP Contraction And More
President Trump Must Be One-Term, Voluntarily!
Documentary Of The Week: Untold History Of The United States, 1890s To 1920
Where MPs Stood On Brexit
How Accurate Are Final US Election Polls
Brexit In The Supreme Court - Here's What It All Means
The States Where It's Legal To Smoke Marijuana
What We Read Today 06 December 2016
This Truck's Barrier Expands Out Of The Back For A Quarter Mile
October 2016 Manufacturing New Orders Improved
3Q2016 (Final): Headline Productivity Improves
October 2016 Trade Data Mixed
October 2016 CoreLogic Home Prices Year-over-Year Growth Rate Now Improved to 6.7%.
Investing Blog
Exuberance Returns Technical Summary 07 December 2016
Opinion Blog
Trump And Modi: Birds Of The Same Feather, But With Different World Views
Oil Deal Won't Last Long
Precious Metals Blog
Silver Prices Rebounded Today: Where They Are Headed
Live Markets
06Dec2016 Market Close: Wall Street Closed Higher, Commodities Remain Weak, The Bull Marches On
Amazon Books & More

.... and keep up with economic news using our dynamic economic newspapers with the largest international coverage on the internet
Asia / Pacific
Middle East / Africa
USA Government

Crowdfunding ....



Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day


Asia / Pacific
Middle East / Africa
USA Government

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution



  Top Economics Site Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2016 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved