Blanket ban on tobacco funded research risks missing out on good quality studies.

It is easy to understand the BMJ’s policy on refusing research funded by the tobacco industry, given the harm that the industry does. However, a blanket policy of rejecting all research from the tobacco industry makes me uncomfortable. This policy is based on nothing other than an ad hominem fallacy. Much research funded by the tobacco industry is flawed and unworthy of publication in a prestigious journal, but surely such research should be rejected because of its flaws rather than who funded it? What incentives does the policy give to the tobacco industry? If tobacco industry researchers would like to have research published in the BMJ, then a policy of accepting good quality research and rejecting flawed research gives them an incentive to up their game. If their research will be rejected whatever, you remove that incentive. The recent rise of e-cigarettes is an important development in reducing harms from tobacco, but we have much to learn about them. Can e-cigarettes help smokers to quit? Do e-cigarettes act as a “gateway” to smoking for some people who might not otherwise have taken up smoking? Do some who might have taken up smoking never smoke but simply use e-cigarettes instead? Those are important questions, and research that helps to answer them may well be funded by the tobacco industry. If that research is of good quality, why not publish it? In his Critique of Judgement, Kant argued that it is important to think for oneself. A blanket policy of rejecting tobacco industry research removes the need for BMJ editors to think for themselves, leaving them instead to rely instead on what Kant called “prejudice.” Prejudice does not seem to be a good way to make decisions about scientific publishing.