The authors argue that medical journals should reverse bans on publishing tobacco-industry sponsored research, advocating for transparency and peer review over censorship.
The tobacco industry's behaviour is as noxious as its products. During the past year, tobacco executives have denied that nicotine is addictive, spent heavily to stop antismoking laws in the American Congress and states, prosecuted their own former executives who have tried to speak out, and even threatened the media's attempts at investigations. 1 So it is not surprising that the American Thoracic Society, the scientific arm of the American Lung Association, decided last month that it would no longer accept any medical research that is funded by the tobacco industry in its two peer reviewed journals (6 January, p 11. ) 2 The decision was a step further in the medical society's laudable fight against tobacco, but it was a misguided one. Tobacco accounts for a third of deaths in the developed world3 and about 10% of medical costs in the United States result directly from tobacco use. More perniciously tobacco advertising has been shown to be aimed successfully at young people. 4 In Washington, the industry spends millions to maintain its own livelihood by being, according to one congressman, “the most pervasive lobbyist in politics today. ”5 The tobacco industry also promotes itself through research grants. In 1994 in the United States it distributed 19. 5 million for research, which resulted in 375 scientific papers. Nearly 1100 …
Roberts et al. (Sat,) conducted a editorial in Tobacco industry funding in medical research. The authors argue that medical journals should reverse bans on publishing tobacco-industry sponsored research, advocating for transparency and peer review over censorship.