BMJ  2003;327:503 (30 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7413.503-a

Letter

Passive smoking

Agreeing the limits of conflicts of interest

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Editor—The paper by Enstrom and Kabat¹ raises the issue of how much conflict of interest can editors reasonably allow before the findings and interpretation of a particular study are rendered unsafe or, at the very least, too uncertain to be a substantive scientific contribution?

If we think that there really is a limit to the degree of conflict that we judge reasonable, as some responses to the Enstrom and Kabat paper seem to imply, then criticism should be directed to the medical community for having such imprecise thinking over conflicts of interest. In pharma sponsored studies, we mostly allow conflicts provided they are reported accurately. We deplore them in tobacco sponsored research. But there are many examples of how both industries have tried to undermine the independence and rigour of research, bias policy makers, and gouge huge profit from disease.

In papers from the pharma industry we publish a statement . . . [Full text of this article]

Lancet London NW1 7BY richard.horton@lancet.com

Related Article

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

James E Enstrom and Geoffrey C Kabat
BMJ 2003 326: 1057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Passive smoking: Non-smoking researchers’ personal values cause conflict of interest.

Erik Nord
bmj.com, 10 Oct 2003 [Full text]

Passive Smoking Risks: From Pollution, Not Bias

James L. Repace
bmj.com, 2 Dec 2003 [Full text]