Smoke poisons scientific literature. The tobacco industry finances studies that are published in the main magazines in the sector, according to an investigation carried out by The Investigative Desk and the medical journal The BMJ. The latter is one of the few scientific publications that has prohibited studies wholly or partially financed by tobacco companies. Only eight of the 40 magazines analyzed do so. The analysis points to a total of 876 studies from the scientific repository PubMed, published since 1996. In these, at least one of the researchers was related to a medical company with financial ties to the tobacco industry. The study points out that this is a problem that is repeated over time, despite attempts by some magazines to completely cut ties with the industry.
There are four large tobacco companies in the world, but they have diversified into a complex business network with branches into medical and pharmaceutical subsidiaries. These are more complicated to detect, even if the magazine in question tries. The authors of the study give as an example something that happened to them in their own publications. A few months ago BMJ Open had to retract an article after it came to light that one of its funders was sponsored by the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, a group dependent on the tobacco company Philip Morris International.
“It doesn’t surprise me at all,” he answers in an exchange of messages. Francisco Camarelles Guillem, professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Madrid and delegate of the National Committee for the Prevention of Smoking. “The tobacco industry has funded many studies to deny how harmful their products are or that they do not cause addiction. “Its tentacles are very long and affect many fields, including research.”
In Merchants of doubt (Captain Swing) Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes denounce how a corporate network has been hindering scientific research for years to benefit its economic interests. This practice is especially common, the authors explain, in the world of tobacco and climate change, where companies “keep controversy alive by spreading doubt and confusion” after a scientific consensus has been reached. This was the strategy repeated for decades by tobacco companies starting in the 1950s, when the relationship between tobacco and cancer began to be scientifically proven. Millions were invested in tobacco research that actually studied other things, what historians call “decoy research.”
And this would be the strategy that they are now replicating with tobacco alternatives, such as vapes, which they try to pass off as a healthy substitute for tobacco. Vaping is already more common than cigarettes among young people, according to a report coordinated by the University of Glasgow and commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO). Electronic cigarettes with nicotine are “harmful to health and very addictive,” according to this organization. Although their long-term effects are not fully known, it has been shown that they release toxic carcinogenic substances and increase the risk of heart and lung disorders.
“Anyone who understands (…) this epidemic and the tobacco industry’s strategic efforts to divide the public health community knows that industry money should be rejected,” he states in an associated editorial. Ruth Maloneprofessor of behavioral social sciences at the University of California and former editor-in-chief of the journal Tobacco Control of the BMJ Group. But not everyone is so forceful. The study includes the statements of different scientists whose studies have been financed by the sector, and although the majority consider it an error and intend to amend it, there are those who defend that this collusion can be positive. “While British American Tobacco “Do not interfere with my scientific work, I do not see any immediate problem,” he declared. Alexander Sackprofessor of brain stimulation and applied cognitive neuroscience at Maastricht University, to BMJ.
Asked by EL PAÍS, Camarelles is much more blunt. “The influence of the tobacco industry on research has serious implications for public health. Manipulation and bias in studies can delay the implementation of effective anti-smoking policies and the adoption of evidence-based public health measures,” he notes.
Tobacco kills eight million people every year, according to the WHO. Although it remains a buoyant industry (Imperial Brands, one of the Big Four tobacco companies, puts the total market value at $850 billion) its consumption is declining rapidly. In 2000, 32.7% of the world’s population smoked; In 2020, 22.3% did so, and it is estimated that by 2025 the percentage will fall to 20.4%. Companies use their dwindling but considerable financial capacity not only to diversify their emporium beyond traditional cigarettes, but also to change the perception of their new products.
This is achieved by funding research and trying to influence healthcare professionals. It recently came to light that the tobacco company Philip Morris was funding courses for doctors in Medscape, a health website with information and courses for professionals in the sector. “I am subscribed to Medscape and I received that information about training to help quit smoking,” says Camarelles. “Behind it was the industry.” The courses, which have since been withdrawn, pointed to e-cigarettes as an alternative to tobacco, a form of “harm reduction” for smokers. “It is expected that more than 50% of Philip Morris’ income in 2030 will come from the marketing of these products,” says Camarelles.
The tobacco industry has a long history of subverting science, but only 20% of major medical journals have policies to protect against its influence. This recent investigation may be a wake-up call for the sector. But even with increased surveillance, escaping the influence of this industry can be difficult, the authors acknowledge. There are subsidiaries and organizations associated with tobacco companies, there are scientists with economic interests, institutes and associations financed indirectly by the sector. There are four huge companies, valued at $850 billion, that are forced to renew themselves or disappear. Unless the way they are perceived by the general public changes.
You can follow EL PAÍS Health and Wellbeing in Facebook, x and instagram.
#Tobacco #companies #invest #billions #research #distort #scientific #evidence