New research published today shines a light on the manipulative tactics used by tobacco companies and those associated with them, including publishing research in academic journals without disclosing their conflicts of interest.
The research, published in The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, analysed the publications of 10 international authors who had either directly or indirectly received funding from the tobacco industry to determine how often their conflict of interest was declared alongside their research.
The researchers found that four authors received ‘direct and indirect’ funding and six received ‘indirect’ funding from tobacco and vaping interests.
51 percent of articles from these authors included an incomplete conflict of interest declaration, while 16 percent provided no declaration at all. Only 33 percent of papers included a complete and transparent conflict of interest statement.
Article co-author Professor Jonine Jancey from Curtin University says lack of transparency around conflicts of interests was problematic because research has the potential to influence public opinion, define public health discourse, and inform public health practice and policy.
“A conflict of interest, such as receiving funding directly or indirectly from the tobacco industry, can compromise a researcher’s judgement, potentially influencing numerous steps in the research process and ultimately impact the research results.
“It ultimately means that the research is tarnished, but if the conflict of interest isn’t transparent then there is a high risk that other researchers, policy makers, members of the public and experts will rely on their research without knowing how it may have been influenced.”
Prof Jancey says the tobacco industry’s use of front groups was well documented and appeared to be part of a tobacco industry strategy to side-step conflict of interest requirements.
“Tobacco industries are renowned for using front groups—organisations that aim to represent one agenda while serving some other party or interest. In the academic world this is happening with third-party research organisations that are used to disguise funding from the tobacco industry. The most notable example of this is the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), solely funded by Phillip Morris International.”
Adjunct Professor Terry Slevin, CEO of the Public Health Association of Australia, says “these latest findings provides further evidence of why Governments and political parties must remain sceptical of evidence and arguments presented by those with industry interests.”
“The tobacco industry has a long history of using devious tactics to manipulate the evidence about its products by funding, publishing and disseminating research that supports their goal of continuing to profit from their deadly products,” Adj Prof Slevin says.
“As Big Tobacco looks to promote e-cigarettes – a rapidly developing issue with new evidence emerging daily – we are seeing the same cynical tactics being used.
“This article is a wake-up call that we all need to remain vigilant about what we hear and see when it may come direct or indirectly from industry.”
