Skip to main content

BMJ journal editors will no longer consider research funded by the tobacco industry

Today there was a momentous decision from editors of some key medical journals. Editors of The BMJ, Heart, Thorax, and BMJ Open say they will no longer consider for publication any study that is partly or wholly funded by the tobacco industry.

Writing on bmj.com today, in a hard hitting editorial, they say the new policy is consistent with those of many other journals and demonstrates their commitment to ensuring that - as far as possible - their journals publish honest work that advances knowledge about health and disease.

Critics may argue that publishing such research does not constitute endorsing its findings, but the editors believe this view “ignores the growing body of evidence that biases and research misconduct are often impossible to detect, and that the source of funding can influence the outcomes of studies in invisible ways.”

They argue that, far from advancing knowledge, the tobacco industry “has used research to deliberately produce ignorance and to advance its ultimate goal of selling its deadly products while shoring up its damaged legitimacy.”

They point to extensive research drawing on the tobacco industry’s own internal documents, that shows for decades the industry sought to create both scientific and popular ignorance or “doubt” – at first around the fact that smoking caused lung cancer and later to the harmful effects of secondhand smoke on non-smokers and the true effects of using so called light or reduced tar cigarettes on smokers’ health.

And they acknowledge that journals “unwittingly played a role in producing and sustaining this ignorance.”

Some believe that new tobacco products could represent potential public health gains, and company sponsored research may be the first to identify those gains. But the editors say that, however promising any other products might be, tobacco companies are still in the business of marketing cigarettes.

“The tobacco industry has not changed in any fundamental way, and the cigarette - the single most deadly consumer product ever made - remains widely available and aggressively marketed,” they argue.

In any event, it is a major reversal of editorial position from these journals. They recall that, back in 2003, the editor of the BMJ defended publication of a study with tobacco industry funding saying “The BMJ is passionately antitobacco, but we are also passionately prodebate and proscience. A ban would be antiscience.” But they now believe it is “time to cease supporting the now discredited notion that tobacco industry funded research is just like any other research.”

A problem with this approach is where it will stop. Would they consider bans on publishing work funded by the cosmetic industry for similar reasons? And if not then how can they be certain they are not being unwittingly used as they now believe they have been by the Tobacco Industry?

And what about the food industry. There is currently a major campaign about eating meat from the meat industry. Would these editors consider a ban on publishing any work funded by the meat consortium? It is all a tricky business. 

Putting aside these concerns, they conclude enough is enough: “Refusing to publish research funded by the tobacco industry affirms our fundamental commitment not to allow our journals to be used in the service of an industry that continues to perpetuate the most deadly disease epidemic of our times.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As