551 



t/fMU/9 



Public Health Policy Forum 



■■'-■".. ■ - ; -'-■ W • i 



Tobacco Industry Scientific Advisors: 

 Serving Society or Selling Cigarettes? 



ABSTRACT 



According to induary docu-- 

 meots, cbe tobacco industiy has ex- 

 ecuted t "brflliantJy conceived" 

 strategy to "cieal{e] doubt" in the 

 public's mind about whetber ciga- 

 rette smokmg is in fact a serious 

 cause of disease . A compooent of this 

 straie^ has been the funding of sci- 

 entific research "into the gaps in 

 krKjwIedge in the smoking controver- 

 sy." Grant review and selecboo are 

 perforiDed by a group of itxlepeodent 

 sdentisis. Knosk-iedgeable observer? 

 believe that the oostesce of this re- 

 search funding pcogram in general, 

 and the Scieniific Advisory Board in 

 particular, is intended by the industry 

 to reinforce doubts in the public miiid 

 about the severity of the hazards 

 posed by szQoldng. Because the Ad- 

 visory Board has never takes a public 

 stance against the indusoy'i posilioa 

 that the causal relatiocsfaq) between 

 smoking and clis^a^ remains un- 

 proven, I polled these scientists to 

 determine whether they believed that 

 smoking is a cause of lung cancel. 

 Despite repeated opportunioes, only 

 four of 13 board members respooded. 

 all aSinnatively; two othen hcve oc- 

 pressed their jvxjgnieot that smoking 

 causes lung nncer in tbeir prote- 

 sional publicatioas. Thus, c^er half 

 of the Board members, and the Board 

 as a wbde, have not gone on recotrJ 

 as rejecimg the mdustry's "party 

 line." It might be hoped that the 

 American scientists would foUow the 

 lead of the members of a similar body 

 of scientists in Australia who have 

 taken a strong and public stand 

 against the industry position that 

 smokmg is not an established cause 

 of disease. [Am J Public Health. 

 1991;81:839-842) 



Kenneth E. Warner, PhD 



Introduction 



For nearly 40 years, the tobacco in- 

 dustry has maintained that cigarette smok- 

 ing has not been proven to be a cause of 

 any disease. In what a vice president of 

 the Tobacco Institute charaaenzed as a 

 "brillianily conceived and executed" 

 strategy, the industry has consciously 

 striven to "creat(e) doubt about the health 

 charje without actually denying it."' Tac- 

 tics have ranged from anempis to define 

 the smoking-and-health lexicon for soaal 

 discourse (referring repeatedly, for exam- 

 ple, to a scientific "debate" about the 

 smoking-and-health "controversy") to 

 publicly distorting the findings of scientific 

 studies linking smoking to disease.^ 



Another taaic has involved direa 

 sponsorship of biomedical research to 

 lend credibility to the industry's claim that 

 it "remains commined lo advancing sa- 

 entifk mquiry into the gaps in knowledge 

 m the smokmg controversy."' Toward 

 this end, in 1954 the industry formed the 

 Tobacco Industry Research Committee 

 (TIRC), renamed the Council for Tobacco 

 Research-U.S.A. (CTR) in 1964, "to pro- 

 vide financial support for research by m- 

 dependent saennsts mio tobacco use and 

 health."* 



The public was mtrtxluced to this 

 program in early January 1954 in a full- 

 page advenisemeni run m 448 newspapers 

 m 258 cities, reaching an estimated 43 mil- 

 lion Amencans. Entitled "A Frank State- 

 ment 10 Cigarette Smokers," the ad said 

 that the industry would sponsor impartial 

 saentific studies on the relationship be- 

 tween smoking and health and would "let 

 the results speak for themsetves." The ad 

 assured readers that the tobacco compa- 

 nies "accept an interest in people's health 

 as a basic responsibility, paramount to any 

 other consideration in our business . . . 



We ahA'ays have and ahvay^ wilJ cooper- 

 ate with those whose task it s to safeguard 

 the public health."' 



Readers of the Jouma need no as- 

 sistance in evaluating the socenty of thai 

 "frank statement." More can 30 years 

 later, the industry continues to use this 

 sponsorship of research to jnempt to cre- 

 ate the impression of "soeaufic contro- 

 versy," and of the industry s "well-inten- 

 tioned commitment" to "raoMng" the 

 "controversy." This is demonstrated in 

 the foUowing statement fran a 1986 pub- 

 lication of the Tobacco Insmuie: 



Industry suppon of independent re- 

 search a in ^-'^•^y of S130 miflnn and 

 has resulted in pubticauoB of nearly 

 2.6G0 soenuhc papers. £>vKn/ scien- 

 ruts belifi* that qu^sncra relatv^ to 

 smoking and health are wvesoKed, 

 (emphass added) and the tobacco in- 

 dustry will maJte new conBunr^nts lo 

 help seek answers to those questrans.' 



While the individual components of 

 this sutement are literally accurate, the 

 intent and effea of theu- wording and their 

 juxtaposition are to mislead. The state- 

 ment implies that the industry's grants 

 suppon research direaed at resolving 

 "questions relating to smbkmg and 

 health." In the main, ths s simply not 

 true. Most CTR-funded grants support 

 biomedical research not related to the 

 health consequences of smoking. In a re- 

 cent survey of principal invcsiigaiors 

 funded by CTR grants in :989, almost SO 

 percent of respondents aidicaicd that 

 none of their research, current or past. 



Address repnm requests lo Kennelh E. V.ar- 

 ner. PhD. Depanmeni of PutBC Heaiih Policy 

 & Adfflinisu^iion. School d Public Healih, 

 University of Michigan. ICO Wa^hmgion 

 Heights. Ann Artot. Ml JJS1.^2(nv. This pa- 

 per, submitted lo the Journal JuJy 17.1 WO. » a.s 

 revised and accepted for pi^acaiion February 

 13. 1991. 



Juiy 1991. Vd. 81. No. 7 



Ajnerxan Journal of P-abtic I (ealih V 



