Calendar

January February March April May June July August September October November December

October 2009 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat         1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

For your eyes only: keeping our work private

Even a cursory review of tobacco industry documents reveals companies determined to direct or derail the dialogue of tobacco control. The industry establishes and supports seemingly independent organizations (e.g. My Choice.ca, Canadian Convenience Stores Association, etc.) and pays scientists to conduct “independent” research to put forth industry views and obfuscate dialogue. Is it any wonder that the CCTC, by maintaining a members only website and a “closed” conference, seeks to provide tobacco control advocates with an environment in which open and frank discussion can occur?

Additional Information from the Tobacco Control Reference Catalogue

British American Tobacco ghost-wrote reports on tobacco advertising bans by the International Advertising Association and J J Boddewyn
Davis, Ronald M.
Tobacco Control. 17(3): 211-214. June 2008. [Article]
This article outlines how the document "Tobacco advertising bans and consumption in 16 countries", that criticized advertising bans was not edited by J. J. Boddewyn and the International Advertising Association, but in fact ghost-written by Paul Bingham from British American Tobacco.

How tobacco-friendly science escapes scrutiny in the courtroom
Davis, Ronald M.
Tobacco Control. 95(S1): S16-S20. July 2005. [Article]
Based on industry document research, three lawyers argue that most scientific testimony presented in court by the tobacco industry should be discounted since it is produced by and for their lawyers, rather than independent scientists.

Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research
Hardell, Lennart; Walker, Martin J.; Walhjalt, Bo; Friedman, Lee S.; Richter, Elihu D.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 50(3): 227-233. March 2007. [Article]
Presents examples of researchers who worked as consultants and failed to disclose financial ties to the tobacco industry, with vested interests in the outcome of research. Highlights the case of Sir Richard Doll, whose influential paper in cancer epidemiology, concluded that only a small percentage of cancer was caused by environmental exposures. Calls for strict development and application of policies on disclosing conflicts of interest.

The Philip Morris external research program : results from the first round of projects
Hirschhorn, N.; Aguinaga Bialous, S.; Shatenstein, S.
Tobacco Control. 15(3): 267-269. June 2006. [Article]
Of 153 applications for grants, 61 proposals were funded, of which 36 produced 78 scientific publications. The authors believe that the Philip Morris External Research Program (PMERP) seems to be less a vehicle for analytical scientific investigation and more a way to help improve Philip Morris’ public image.

Tobacco industry efforts undermining evidence linking secondhand smoke with cardiovascular disease
Tong, Elisa K.; Glantz, Stanton A.
Circulation. 116(16): 1845-1854. October 16, 2007. [Article]
After sifting through nearly 50 million pages of previously secret, internal tobacco industry documents, Tong and Glantz have documented for the first time how the tobacco industry funded and used scientific studies to undermine evidence linking secondhand smoke to cardiovascular disease.

Tobacco industry sponsorship of a book and conflict of interest
Hong, Mi-Kyung; Bero, Lisa A.
Addiction. 101(8): 1202-1211. August 2006. [Article]
A qualitative analysis of tobacco industry documents shows the tobacco industry sponsored the book: "Analytical determination of nicotine and related compounds and their metabolites", which looked at the measurement and metabolism of nicotine. The results demonstrate the extent of tobacco industry involvement in producing scientific information and dissemination, and the reasons for sponsoring scientific literature.