Ethical issues raised by tobacco industry‐linked research in the era of e‐cigarettes

Abstract

ETHICAL ISSUES RAISED BY TOBACCO INDUSTRY-LINKED RESEARCH IN THE ERA OF E-CIGARETTESEthical issues raised by tobacco industry-linked research in the era of e-cigarettes are complex, partly because of the methods used by tobacco companies to influence science. There is a good case to consider for extending the ban on tobacco industry-linked research, and for further monitoring and investigations of subversion of science.Scientific misconduct co-ordinated at a high level between tobacco companies has been understood as a conspiracy [1]. This evidence from internal company documents is unchallengeable. Evidence on the current status of the decades-long conspiracy is less strong, although legal and scientific opinions see little prospect of change (e.g. [2]). This has led some journals to ban tobacco industry-funded studies [2][3][4].Although what Shaw and colleagues [5] frame as scientific misconduct is extensive, I am not aware of similar evidence of high-level collusion between pharmaceutical companies [6]. I would not be surprised, however, if there existed a range of connections between companies. These could result from patterns of crossownership and directorships, movements of senior personnel, organizational cultures shaped by facing similar regulatory challenges, the use of the same public relations and legal firms and other factors [7,8]. That would not, of course, justify the suggestion made by Shaw and colleagues that 'it does appear that the tobacco industry is being singled out by the public health community'. Surely, rather than being singled out, the tobacco companies have simply been found out.Whether or not journals should publish e-cigarettes research linked to tobacco companies is an important question. Many other important ethical issues are also touched upon here. These include whether further journals, including this one, should adopt policies of not publishing tobacco industry-funded research. Shaw and colleagues [5] suggest that they should not, although this conclusion does not emerge clearly from the analysis undertaken.Because deception has been a defining characteristic of tobacco industry scientific misconduct [4], instances may be complex to uncover and may raise complex ethical issues. I will use an illustrative example. A paper by Nutt and colleagues [9] is cited a number of times in the paper by Shaw and colleagues to provide evidence promoting the public health potential of e-cigarettes. This study has been controversial [10,11], partly as no tobacco industry funding was declared, and yet some authors have had financial links with tobacco companies in the past [11].In the case of research funding received some time ago, perhaps the authors did not consider this information relevant to disclose. An editorial note on the same paper indicates awareness of an undeclared association with Nicoventures, the e-cigarette company wholly owned by British American Tobacco (BAT) [9]. The author concerned recently co-authored a paper with a company employee [12]. Little is known about the study ...

The commercial promotion of electronic cigarettes on social media and its influence on positive perceptions of vaping and vaping behaviours in Anglophone countries: A scoping review

“…Hence, the omission of a declaration of interest PLOS GLOBAL PUBLIC HEALTH and funding information observed in Daniel, Jackson and Westerman's (2018) study [50] is problematic. Conflicts of interest and funding should always be declared, as it is primordial information and an ethical principle in health research [70].…”

Development processes for e-cigarette public health recommendations lacked transparency in managing conflicts of interest

“…The production and dissemination of COI can apply across many industries: the tobacco industry archetypically but may also apply to the pharmaceutical and alcohol industry [22]. Even within public health topics, different industries may have different interests and positions, with some authors noting this in relation to tobacco and e-cigarette companies [23].…”

Foundation for a Smoke-Free World and healthy Indigenous futures: an oxymoron?

“…Thus, commercial tobacco and any of its derivatives represent a threat to physical health, as well as spiritual health and well-being. In fact, given this understanding regarding the modification, transformation and commercialisation of the nicotiana tobacco plant25 30 and the strong evidence base of commercial tobacco-related addiction and ill-health, tobacco industry–funded research activities can be seen as a form of contemporary colonisation 9 29 32. This form of contemporary colonisation can be seen as a result of using culturally inappropriate protocols, assimilative practices and a raft of colonisation tools and processes, distorting Indigenous realities and creating an inaccurate Indigenous narrative that promotes Indigenous health harms and perpetuates oppression.…”