558 



Any survey like those cooduaed by 

 Wjdicr anJ Cumniings cl al. inio Ihe be- 

 Iiwls iif special gru"(» "f soeniisls raises 

 il.c s|iccicf of ccnsorsliip ihmugh inlimt- 

 J.iiu-ii. To suppress sucnlilic work be- 

 L.iusc oi iL. coosequcntcs is jusi another 

 excuse for iinposing censorship. More- 

 iivcr, should one really discourage re- 

 Mcwi of past research and the implemen- 

 i..ium of new smoUngrelaied research 

 ,h.,i IS cniically onented' Critical reviews 

 i.i incorrect and nusleading practices in 

 >ni>ikiiig-and-heallh research serve to 

 111 liliglit erroneous methods and have an 

 ,.11(^11 lant hygienic effect on the condua 

 .1 science. Al the same tune they do not 

 ,i,.i;jie results ol properly conducted in- 

 \t^llgJllons. But, inoti. imponant, scien- 

 1I.-.IS must be free to pursue wliatever ap- 

 |.^jrs promising to llieni. For instance, 

 i^ci-nt observations luve shown that 

 Miu.lsing IS negatively associated with the 

 i^Liive nsk of J number of ver> prevalent 

 .iiid important diseases and with the se- 

 ^ ^1 II) of their syin|>ioms. piiinjrily Alzhe- 

 inivi's, I'.iikiiiMiiis, .ind preeclampsia. 

 M.ould such lelevjnt ri.scarth be sup- 

 ,,ie».-.ed because 11 niiglit increase the sale 

 , 11 . ivj.iieties ' ( tXi scieiilihe dis-igrcenKnts 

 i^.ill> affect the sale ol cigarettes?) 



h is uiifortun.iie lli.ii iiulividuals who 

 .lie -.lumgly dedicated lo advancing a so- 

 ojI good olien ap|Hiint themselves as 

 tciai.lians of public molality. 



I shall seek to publish a full reply to 

 W.iiiiet and (uniinings el al. in another 

 l..iiiiial. Ill the mejiiiiinc I would be 

 ,.U.ised lo send a copy of tliat reply or 

 u 1 .1 mis of our work to iiileresied readers, 

 il.kphone: (o*W) 733-13-)8/(604) 681- 

 ;7tll;fax(«M)t)81-27ll2). D 



Tluudur I). Hurling, PhD 



U^,|iitsis lor rcpnnls sluxild IJc sent lo Thealoc 

 1 ) Sici ling, I'liU. Fjculiy ol Applied Sciences. 

 vl»»il of Compuiing Sciciier. Simon Fraser 

 linivcisiiy. Buniahy, Briiisli Columbu, Can- 

 ...Ij VSA ISA. 



Itcrcrences 



I Wjriici KL.TiibjiuniiJusiryiCienllhcad- 

 \ LM.n.: SeiviiiB s.iciely or selling cigarelles'? 

 ImJI-uUiL H.Ml. PW1.8I;I!3V-842. 



;. I'.iinniiiigs KM. S..ul>.lra R, Gini;rass A. 

 Hums R Wlul >eiciilisl» funded Ijy the lo- 

 l..«.eo iiKjusliy tvliev^ jl«>ul llie huards ol 

 ei^jftlle Kiiulkiiig All, J I'ubUc Healllu 

 l'i'JI,lll.8'J4 BV6 



Cummings et al. Respond 



1)1 Sicrling IS inoiiec-t in character- 

 liiiUjout article' as an aileinpt to discredit 

 .iiid uiliinidaie seieniisis funded by the 



( icilloiTol^aceo Research (CTR). We 



.111 not qiiestKui the motives of these so- 



eniisls but rather the tobacco imtaaiy'i 

 (Dotivitiao in oonmuinj lo supfxxt the 

 CTR . Sin^ suied, we believe the goal erf 

 tobacco industry nunagement is tKH to un- 

 cover the truth about smoking and 

 health — u is to sefl cigarettes. 



We asserted in our article thai the 

 tobacco industry's purpose in funding the 

 CTR is to manipuUie and control the flow 

 to the public of scientific information 

 about smoking and health. A recent mUng 

 from a tobacco liabiUty case in New Jer- 

 sey (Haines vs Liggett group) suppons 

 this assertion.' The judge, in ruling about 

 ihe admissibility of documents in the case, 

 concluded that the documents contained 

 "expliat admissioos" that the tobacco in- 

 dustry had used the CTR to support its 

 legal defense needs. 



Even today, the tobacco industry 

 continues to deny the causal link between 

 cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In re- 

 sponse 10 a letter wnling campaign by a 

 fifth-grade class in Amherst, New York, 

 an R.J. Reynolds spokesman wrote, "the 

 simple and unfortunate fact is that socn- 

 iists do not know the cause or causes of 

 the chronic diseases reported to be asso- 

 ciated wiih smoking. More sdeniific re- 

 search IS needed." The letter goes on to 

 cue the industry's support of the CTR. 



Our article deaionstrales that almost 

 all scientists funded by the CTR believe 

 smoking causes disease and woukJ dis- 

 agree with the assertion in the RJ. Rey- 

 nolds letter. The faa that a few soentisu, 

 such as Dr. Sterling, hold conuary views 

 does not mean that there is significant 

 controversy about tobacco and dsease, 

 as the industry wants people to believe, 

 only that there is not unanimity. Neither 

 public health policy nor personal deci- 

 sions about health need await uoiveisal 

 agreement that a substance is dangerous. 

 We had hoped our article wouk) sum- 

 ulaie debate among scientists about tJ»e 

 ethical dilemma of accepting funding from 

 the CTR or similar industry-supponed en- 

 tities ui light of the industry's possWe uses 

 of such participation. Apparendy, we 

 have succeeded. D 



K. Michad Cummingi. PhD. MPH 



KuatO Sdttitdn 



Ronald M. Dewa, UD 



K Midiael Cumuungs, PhD, MPH, o with 

 RosweU Park Cancer Insutuie. Buflalo, NY 

 RusselJ Soandra » wiih the Tobacco Coouol 

 Program of the New York Suic Healib Depait- 

 menl »nd Ronald M. Davis, MD. c. «iih the 

 Mich^an Depanmenl of Public HeaWi. Lan- 

 sing, Midi. 



Requeas far repcintt sboukJ be KBi ID K- 

 Mehad Cmmings. PtlD. MPH, Smokaj Coo- 



uol Proaam, Rowti Pafk CaKH Inswuie, 

 Etain«lCiitooStt,B. Jato.NYMaLHIUI. 



Rdierences 



1. Oimnun^ KM, Scaodn R, Gmgnis A, 

 Dav& R Whal xxausa hinded by llie lo- 

 bacco indusiry bdicvt aboul the kazacifc of 

 agarclte smoking. Am J Pubk IhalllL 

 1991;81;8«-896. 



2. Uw IB. "Fraudl- Judge leleaso secret lo- 

 baceo industry dooimeoii. r<Aitco »i 

 TTtaL Febniaiy 2*. 1992:1-5. 



Warner Responds 



Obviously , die amdes by my^ein and 

 Cummmgs « al.' haw struck a raw nerve. 

 Unfortunately, it was the wrong nerve, at 

 least as relates to my artick. (I would not 

 presume to speak for Dr. Oinmings and 

 his colleagues.) The point of my Policy Fo- 

 rum article was to raise consciousness 

 aboul the tobacco industry's use of its re- 

 search-hinding progjam as a [wblic rela- 

 tions device , not to challenge the aedibtlity 

 of the research. Indeed, as no«ed in my 

 arude, Uttle of that research actually le- 

 laics directly to the dangers <rf smoking, 

 and Uiat which does typically supports the 

 conventional wisdom on the sul^ea. Wlien 

 the latter is pointed out to the odustry, it is 

 the industry itself thai challen^ the cnaJ- 

 toilily of the science it has funded, invari- 

 ably insisting that the work is nadequate, 

 that "more reseaidi'' is needed. 



I concur wth Di Sterling's condu- 

 skin diat my anide relates to "the specter 

 of censorship through intimidMon." Yet 

 it is not my poll of the CTR Soaiufic Ad- 

 visory Board that achieves the heinous 

 outcome; rather, the documeaed expcri 

 ence demonstrates die industiys abUity to 

 intimidate iu sdeniific cons»*ants. Tit- 

 tobacco industry emptoys its economic 

 musde to intimidate a wide vinety of in- 

 dividuals and institutions throughout our 

 sodety, induding legislators, the media,* 

 and, apparendy, elements of the scientilic 

 establishment as weU. 



If Dr. Sterling will uke the time to 

 reread my artick, he will find only a suigW 

 call to action. That is die seemingly mod- 

 est suggestkm that the CTR Sdentific Ad 

 visory Board (SAB) issue a colledive 

 sutement similar to Uiat of Uieir Austra- 

 lian counterpart, who wrote that "siiiok 

 ing IS an important causative taaor in sev- 

 eral major diseases."' All ct America s 

 major healdi and medical oiganizauons 

 have taken this stand publidy . What si.h«« 

 the SAB? If it is truly independent (and | 

 free of intimidaiioo), this wouU constitute 

 a natural means of dasocuung the saeiice 

 it purportedly represents fruiB die distut 

 liooary use of the CTR propam by tlic 



.iiihtr IWi V.J «:, N41. 9 



Amaicaa Jounal of Pubbc lleaJih 12^* 



