I have been watching the debate over Enstrom/Kabat with great
interest. It is astounding how much of the criticism springs from an Ad
Hominem argument rather than from scientific criticism of the study
itself.
The hostility displayed here shows why researchers feel pressured to
design and carry out only smoking-related research likely to give results
supporting Antismoking efforts. The funding for such research is probably
many times greater than any currently coming from Big Tobacco, and it
leaves the researchers free from worries that their integrity will be
impugned while also promoting their chances for future grants.
I am sure Stanton Glantz was not alone in 1992 (Revolt Against
Tobacco, p. 14) when he said, "…that's the question that I have applied to
my research relating to tobacco. If this comes out the way I think, will
it make a difference? And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the
answer is I don't know then we don't bother. Okay? And that's the
criteria." (1)
All too many scientists today seem willing to subordinate their
science to their activist beliefs or the lure of grants from deep pockets.
Knowing that smoking bans are a valuable weapon in the war against
smoking, and knowing that ban implementations rest upon the fear that has
been fanned around even slight smoke exposures, they have been all too
willing to jump on the tax- and pharmaceutical-funded money train of
Antismoking research. While it is probably rare that data is actually
“faked,” the very design of a study can often indicate the likely results,
and whatever the results, they can always be “interpreted” with some
degree of spin.
To give one very brief example: The 1998 WHO research authored by
Boffetta et al. was released with a WHO public relations blitz headlined:
"DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU! PASSIVE SMOKING *DOES* CAUSE CANCER." (2) For
the general public, this was the conclusion to be swallowed and used to
promote otherwise unacceptable levels of behavior regulation.
However, if one actually reads the study, one finds that there were
no statistically significant results to justify that headline, and that
indeed the ONLY statistically valid conclusion reached by the study was
that children of smokers had a lung cancer rate 22% **LOWER** than
children of nonsmokers! Despite the fact that this was the only
statistically significant conclusion found in the study, the official
Abstract glossed over it by characterizing the finding as "no
association." (3) Imagine the headlines that would have been trumpeted
around the world if the opposite conclusion had been reached!
There may well be some almost invisible health effects from long term
exposure to secondary tobacco smoke at higher than usual levels. All that
the research so far has shown is that if such effects DO exist, they are
incredibly small in terms of the decisions or concerns in any individual’s
life, particularly in situations with well-designed ventilation and high
rates of air exchange. Fear, division, and even hatred have been
encouraged by Antismoking groups seeking support for total smoking bans
regardless of any such mitigating factors. It’s a sad day for all of us
when such forces reach into the world of basic science and health research
and corrupt the scientific method.
As noted below, no competing financial interests, however those who
are interested may find me in ANR's "Tobacco Industry Tracking Database"
because I had the temerity to criticize the EPA in a Letter To The Editor.
A private email of mine to a smokers rights group (smokersrightsrjr) has
been made public on the web as well, courtesy of The American Legacy
Foundation, and may be found on their site.
Competing interests:
I have no financial competing interests of any sort other than as a possible future author. I am a member of several smokers rights organization and have researched and written on the subject extensively.
Rapid Response:
Research Bias and Science
I have been watching the debate over Enstrom/Kabat with great
interest. It is astounding how much of the criticism springs from an Ad
Hominem argument rather than from scientific criticism of the study
itself.
The hostility displayed here shows why researchers feel pressured to
design and carry out only smoking-related research likely to give results
supporting Antismoking efforts. The funding for such research is probably
many times greater than any currently coming from Big Tobacco, and it
leaves the researchers free from worries that their integrity will be
impugned while also promoting their chances for future grants.
I am sure Stanton Glantz was not alone in 1992 (Revolt Against
Tobacco, p. 14) when he said, "…that's the question that I have applied to
my research relating to tobacco. If this comes out the way I think, will
it make a difference? And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the
answer is I don't know then we don't bother. Okay? And that's the
criteria." (1)
All too many scientists today seem willing to subordinate their
science to their activist beliefs or the lure of grants from deep pockets.
Knowing that smoking bans are a valuable weapon in the war against
smoking, and knowing that ban implementations rest upon the fear that has
been fanned around even slight smoke exposures, they have been all too
willing to jump on the tax- and pharmaceutical-funded money train of
Antismoking research. While it is probably rare that data is actually
“faked,” the very design of a study can often indicate the likely results,
and whatever the results, they can always be “interpreted” with some
degree of spin.
To give one very brief example: The 1998 WHO research authored by
Boffetta et al. was released with a WHO public relations blitz headlined:
"DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU! PASSIVE SMOKING *DOES* CAUSE CANCER." (2) For
the general public, this was the conclusion to be swallowed and used to
promote otherwise unacceptable levels of behavior regulation.
However, if one actually reads the study, one finds that there were
no statistically significant results to justify that headline, and that
indeed the ONLY statistically valid conclusion reached by the study was
that children of smokers had a lung cancer rate 22% **LOWER** than
children of nonsmokers! Despite the fact that this was the only
statistically significant conclusion found in the study, the official
Abstract glossed over it by characterizing the finding as "no
association." (3) Imagine the headlines that would have been trumpeted
around the world if the opposite conclusion had been reached!
There may well be some almost invisible health effects from long term
exposure to secondary tobacco smoke at higher than usual levels. All that
the research so far has shown is that if such effects DO exist, they are
incredibly small in terms of the decisions or concerns in any individual’s
life, particularly in situations with well-designed ventilation and high
rates of air exchange. Fear, division, and even hatred have been
encouraged by Antismoking groups seeking support for total smoking bans
regardless of any such mitigating factors. It’s a sad day for all of us
when such forces reach into the world of basic science and health research
and corrupt the scientific method.
- Michael J. McFadden
(1) www.forces.org/research/files/nci.htm
(2) www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
(3) tobacco.who.int/repository/tpc57/IARC.pdf
As noted below, no competing financial interests, however those who
are interested may find me in ANR's "Tobacco Industry Tracking Database"
because I had the temerity to criticize the EPA in a Letter To The Editor.
A private email of mine to a smokers rights group (smokersrightsrjr) has
been made public on the web as well, courtesy of The American Legacy
Foundation, and may be found on their site.
Competing interests:
I have no financial competing interests of any sort other than as a possible future author. I am a member of several smokers rights organization and have researched and written on the subject extensively.
Competing interests: No competing interests