The tobacco
industry's role in funding scientific research on passive
smoking has been controversial. A review of published studies
found that tobacco-industry affilation was strongly correlated
with findings exonerating passive smoking; researchers
affiliated with the tobacco industry were 88 times more likely
than independent researchers to conclude that passive smoking
was not harmful. In a specific example which came to light with
the release of tobacco-industry documents, Philip Morris
executives successfully encouraged an author to revise his
industry-funded review article to downplay the role of
secondhand smoke in sudden infant death syndrome. The 2006 U.S.
Surgeon General's report criticized the tobacco industry's role
in the scientific debate:
The industry has funded or carried out research that has been
judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to
editors that criticized research publications, attempted to
undermine the findings of key studies, assisted in establishing
a scientific society with a journal, and attempted to sustain
controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus.
This strategy was outlined at an international meeting of
tobacco companies in 1988, at which Philip Morris proposed to
set up a team of scientists, organized by company lawyers, to
"carry out work on ETS to keep the controversy alive." All
scientific research was subject to oversight and "filtering" by
tobacco-industry lawyers:
Philip Morris then expect the group of scientists to operate
within the confines of decisions taken by PM scientists to
determine the general direction of research, which apparently
would then be 'filtered' by lawyers to eliminate areas of
sensitivity.
Philip Morris reported that it was putting "...vast amounts of
funding into these projects... in attempting to coordinate and
pay so many scientists on an international basis to keep the ETS
controversy alive.
Tobacco industry response >>
|
Second Hand Smoke Passive smoking
Long-term
effects
Short-term
effects
Causal
mechanisms
Epidemiological studies of passive smoking
1. Studies of passive smoking in animals
2.
Risk level of passive smoking
Current state of scientific opinion
1. Public
opinion
Controversy over harms of passive smoking
1. Critique of individual studies and epidemiology
2. World Health Organization controversy
3. EPA lawsuit
4. Tobacco-industry funding of research
Tobacco industry response
1. Position of major tobacco companies
|
