Chasing the dollar: why scientists should decline tobacco industry funding.

ost tobacco researchers now know how the tobacco industry for decades operated clandestinely to obstruct and obfuscate the scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer and, later, that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers. The tobacco industry's internal documents , released as a result of the US states Attorneys General lawsuits and other legal cases, provide ample evidence that is analysed in an expanding body of work. 1 2 What may not be as widely known is that these documents also highlight how the industry used respected scientists to advance its goals. Fields and Chapman's important and well documented case study in this issue of the journal shows that even internationally renowned scientists are not immune to the seductions of industry funding. 3 What is important for today's scientists to understand is that credibility is perhaps the most desired scientific product for tobacco industry funded research. To illustrate, you need look no further than the internal form used by Philip Morris' Worldwide Scientific Affairs to evaluate the need for scientific research, which explicitly includes " Credibility " as a primary criterion for judging proposed studies (along with Health/Safety, Regulatory , and Product Change). (see fig 1; also available at http://legacy. library.ucsf.edu/tid/bwi17d00). Credibility is essential to the positive public image the tobacco industry cultivates for the purposes of increasing product consumption , influencing public opinion, and soliciting opposition to effective public health policies. 4 This is only one of the reasons that reputable scientists should view industry funding with scepticism, however. Among the other reasons, as Fields and Chapman show, is that almost no one, regardless of one's pure motivations in conducting scientific research, is unaffected by the need to obtain dollars to do the work. Why was Wynder so anxious to be seen as " not anti-tobacco " ? As this case study shows, it was because he wanted to ensure that he could get (and continue to get) money from the tobacco industry. Yes, the industry courted Wyn-der, but he was also active in chasing dollars, and the documents suggest that he may have thought he could steer a course of self management that would preclude conflicts of interest. Unfortunately , it appears he was unsuccessful. Why didn't Wynder openly acknowledge tobacco industry sponsorship? Was he discomfited by the tobacco industry's pressure (for example, to delete any mention of smoking and health from the press materials for his American Health …