555 



d(bl.iepame beatth tuu4 J iii r »c »u . With 

 the excrptioo of bUdder aaoci. nearty 

 all respondents nied ihe retobcxiship be- 

 tween smokjng ind illness »s "Jtronj" <x 

 ••moderate" fT»We 1). Ody 1 o( T7 re- 

 spondents was 1 current smoker. Naooo- 

 •lly, approxinuiely 29* of adults 

 smoke.' 



Only 22% of respondents indicated 

 that any of their current Of past research 

 focused on the health effects of tobacco 

 use. 



Nineryfour percent of respondents 

 agreed with the statement "smoke from 

 someone else's cigarette ts harmful to a 

 nonsmoker". 91% agreed that most 

 deaths from lung cancer art caused by 

 smoking; and 76 of T7 igreed with the 

 sutement "agaretie smoking is addic- 

 tive" (Table 2|. 



Rartkings of the importance of 10 ar- 

 eas of research on tobacco varied widely 

 (Table 3). Overall, research on prevent- 

 ing tobacco use received the highest 

 ranking, followed by smoking cessation 

 methods. 



Discussion 



The low response rate is not unusual 

 for a mailed questionnaire survey,' but 

 does potentialh limii the generalizabiliiN- 

 of the ftnduigs. The comparison of respon- 

 dent and nonrespondeni charaaenstics 

 does not suggest any systematic response 

 bias. It IS possible that among those not 

 responding to the survey were some who 

 feared retribution from the tobacco mdus- 

 try. Such fear, if n existed, would likely be 

 among those whose views are congruent 

 with the majoniy of the respondents. It is 

 also possible thai those with less saentif- 

 ically acceptable positions or greater com- 

 fiutmenl to the tobacco industry were less 

 likely to respond, though it would seem to 

 be in the mdusoy's interest to have its 

 views represented in such a survey , if pos- 

 sible. For these reasons, we believe the 

 results accurately represent views of sci- 

 entists funded by the CTR. 



The survey shows that most scien- 

 tists funded by the CTR believe agarene 

 smoking is an addiaion thai causes a wide 

 range of senous, often fatal, diseases. This 

 finding conflicts with the tobacco mdus- 

 try's description of the soentific commu- 

 luty as divided on the question and irKl>- 

 cates the industry does not accept the 

 opinions even of scientists whose research 

 it funds. Although ackncwiedguig a need 

 for additional investigaixxi of the mecha- 

 nisms linking smoking and disease, re- 

 spondents gave the highest priority to re- 



search on tobacco use prevention and 

 cessation. None of CTR's active research 

 projects reiaie to these topics. Despite its 

 stated mission to fund resean± into the eti- 

 ology of diseases "alleged" to be related lo 

 tobacco use, only 1 m 6 CTR-funded sci- 

 entists reported conducting research fo- 

 cused on the health effects of tobacco. 



We suggest that rather than sponsonng 

 a genuine "program of research into ques- 

 tions of tobacco use and health"' the CTR 

 is a public rclabons vehicle Intended to foo- 

 ler a false impresskm that dgaretie maiw- 



bctuieis are interested in iirvcstigating the 

 sinokiiig and health "question." We believe 

 sudi msuse of science raises senous ethical 

 questnos for sdenlisis who accept funding 

 through CTR or similar industry-supported 

 entities. Evm assuming that adeiyaie fund- 

 ing is m) zvailaUe elsewhere, tobacco in- 

 disDy-supponed soentisis must ask them- 

 selves whether the value of their research in 

 expaikfing die body of biomedical knowl- 

 edge ouiweigfas its utiliiy in funbenng the 

 corporate inieiests of a busness whk± kills 

 434,CD0 Amencans every year.' O 



July 1991. Vd. 81, No. 1 



Aaenae Journal a< PuMc Htydi 895 



