Medical journals refuse to publish tobacco-funded research

October 16, 2013 by Isabelle Knight & Reema Rattan, The Conversation

Editors of journals published by the BMJ Group will no longer consider publishing research that is partly or wholly funded by the tobacco industry, the journals have said in an editorial published this week.

Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than five million deaths every year, and current trends show that it will cause more than eight million deaths annually by the year 2030.

Editor-in-chief of BMJ Open Trish Groves said editors of the BMJ, BMJ Open, Heart, and Thorax could no longer "ignore the growing body of evidence – from the 's released internal documents – that the industry continues to actively play down the risks of its products."

"What's worse is that have published potentially biased studies that were funded by industry, often without realising that research funding bodies that sounded independent and academic were largely paid for by industry."

Other journals that have previously introduced such bans include PLOS Medicine in 2010 and the journals published by The American Thoracic Society in 1995.

The journals' policy change comes in the wake of a recent scandal involving Phillip Morris in the United Kingdom where the government was considering mandating standard packaging for .

Leaked confidential documents showed the company was using a sophisticated lobbying campaign to target politicians and civil servants it believed would support its position against the move.

Professor of at Curtin University, Mike Daube said he had "huge respect" for the journals' decision.

"I think this is a really important step forward, it emphasises that should not be part of, or play any role in promoting tobacco companies and the tobacco industry."

Ethicist and professor of medicine at Monash University, Paul Komesaroff said the move raised questions about whether the ban should be extended to other industries.

"If this principle is adopted, a question then arises is how far further we take it, he said. "Clearly, there are other companies that are involved in activities that might be regarded as being contrary to public health."

Professor Mike Daube said there was a strong case for the journals to take a similar position with regard to the alcohol industry.

The journals have not ruled out banning research supported by other industries.

"We know already that other industries, such as 'Big Food' have followed suit in some of the ways they [the industry] lobby policymakers," Groves said. "If the evidence becomes strong enough that they have also distorted science, journal editors may consider similar bans on submissions of research funded by the food industry. But we're not there yet."

Explore further: Tobacco companies' interests in smokeless tobacco products in Europe are driven by profit not health

Related Stories

Tobacco companies' interests in smokeless tobacco products in Europe are driven by profit not health

September 10, 2013
Transnational tobacco companies' investments in smokeless tobacco products, such as snus (a moist tobacco product that is placed under the upper lip), in Europe are not due to a concern for the health impacts of smoking but ...

Greater transparency needed in publishing information from clinical trials

January 29, 2013
An initiative from the drugs regulator, the European Medicines Agency, to commit to releasing all of the information from clinical trials once the marketing authorization process has ended, which has been greeted with cautious ...

WHO chief accuses tobacco giant of 'sabotaging' EU health bill

September 11, 2013
The World Health Organisation chief on Wednesday accused tobacco giant Philip Morris of seeking to "sabotage" a proposed EU measure to clamp down on tobacco industry marketing aimed at women and youngsters.

Harmful effects of ultra-processed food and drink industries should be regulated

February 11, 2013
An international analysis of food, drink, and alcohol industry involvement in NCD policies shows that despite the common reliance on industry self-regulation and public-private partnerships to improve public health, there ...

Tobacco companies are not public health stakeholders

May 28, 2013
When assessing information presented by the tobacco industry, the US regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and regulatory bodies in other countries, should be aware that they are dealing with companies with a ...

Recommended for you

Could insufficient sleep be adding centimeters to your waistline?

July 27, 2017
Adults in the UK who have poor sleep patterns are more likely to be overweight and obese and have poorer metabolic health, according to a new study.

Sugar not so sweet for mental health

July 27, 2017
Sugar may be bad not only for your teeth and your waistline, but also your mental health, claimed a study Thursday that was met with scepticism by other experts.

Vitamin E-deficient embryos are cognitively impaired even after diet improves

July 27, 2017
Zebrafish deficient in vitamin E produce offspring beset by behavioral impairment and metabolic problems, new research at Oregon State University shows.

The role of dosage in assessing risk of hormone therapy for menopause

July 27, 2017
When it comes to assessing the risk of estrogen therapy for menopause, how the therapy is delivered—taking a pill versus wearing a patch on one's skin—doesn't affect risk or benefit, researchers at UCLA and elsewhere ...

Blowing smoke? E-cigarettes might help smokers quit

July 26, 2017
People who used e-cigarettes were more likely to kick the habit than those who didn't, a new study found.

Brain disease seen in most football players in large report

July 25, 2017
Research on 202 former football players found evidence of a brain disease linked to repeated head blows in nearly all of them, from athletes in the National Football League, college and even high school.

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jim4321
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2013
Political views are being introduced into the editing of scientific work. This is dangerous and has the potential to subvert the scientific process that is based on objective analysis. Probably it is best to adopt an absolute standard: no political interference in the publishing of scientific studies.
freethinking
1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2013
I agree with you Jim that Political views are introduced into editing of scientific work and this should never happen.
If anyone is submitting a scientific study, let it be evaluated and published based on scientific merit alone.
Problem now is becoming, if it isn't created by politically correct entity producing the study or if the results are not politically correct, it won't be published.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.