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

Letter

Passive smoking

Background must be examined

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

Editor—The reviews of the paper by Enstrom and Kabat and the responses to them raise serious concerns about this paper,¹ strengthened by what has since emerged about one of the author's links to the tobacco industry. As an editor who has been misled by an ostensibly independent scientist later found to be a consultant for the tobacco industry, I am hesitant to criticise others who may find themselves in a potentially similar position as discovering the full story can be lengthy and painful.² One must consider not just the scientific merits of what was published but also the many analyses that could be but were not. One must also scrutinise carefully statements that could be genuine differences of interpretation but may reflect other motives. Especially where passive smoking is concerned, it is essential to examine the background to the study, given the unprecedented resources used by the tobacco industry in . . . [Full text of this article]

editor in chief, European Journal of Public Health London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT martin.mckee@lshtm.ac.uk

Related Articles

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]

How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke

Mi-Kyung Hong and Lisa A Bero
BMJ 2002 325: 1413-1416. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]