(Tobacco industry research: collaboration, not confrontation, is the best approach)
(Tobacco company sponsorship discredits medical, but not all, research)
(Condemning the drinks industry rules out potentially useful research)
(If the drinks industry does not clean up its act, pariah status is inevitable)
(Collaborative research with infant formula companies should not always be censored)
(How much research in infant feeding comes from unethical marketing?)
Professor Tom Sorell of the University of Essex writes that "as soon as the source of the funding is known the research is discredited. The tobacco industry has only itself to blame...". He argues that a strategy of scientific publication to raise questions rather than answer them has been adopted by the tobacco industry to try and discredit evidence of a health risk from smoking. Professor Sorell concludes that a particularly troubling example is the funding of leisure research by BAT, which "...seems calculated to associate smoking with an area of life in which smoking may be made to seem (incorrectly) to be a harmless occasional indulgence rather than a health hazard".
Dr Christopher Proctor, who is head of science and regulation at British American Tobacco defends industry involvement in research and writes that British Governments have supported the industry funding of biomedical research, which has led to a greater understanding of smoking behaviour and mechanisms of disease. The author stresses, however, that "...science is yet to ascertain precise biological mechanisms whereby prolonged exposure to constituents of tobacco smoke causes [...]diseases...".
Dr Proctor argues against the claim that funded research may be "presented in a skewed manner" by underlining the value of the peer review process (whereby published research is checked over by a third party) and highlighting the trust that we must always place in the integrity of scientific researchers. (See also interview with Dr Proctor in the News Section of this week's BMJ).
Dr Christopher Proctor, Head of Science and Regulation, British American Tobacco, Millbank, Knowle Green, Staines, Middlesex
Professor Tom Sorell, Professor of Philosophy, University of Essex, Wivenhow Park, Colchester
Professor Hurst Hannum from Tufts University in the US says that the "...condemnation of the drinks industry and [...] elimination of potentially useful research because of moralistic ideology should be rejected by anyone who claims to serve the interests of science." He argues that almost all funding comes with "strings attached" and he ponders whether funding from the drinks industry should be "...any more corrupting than money from the pharmaceutical, food, car or chemical industries, each of which also has profit making as its primary corporate goal". The author states that the response to concerns about funding should not be to prohibit research, but instead to develop ethical principles to protect the integrity of donors and recipients - such as those that have been established in the Principles of Cooperation among the Beverage Alcohol Industry, Governments, Scientific Researchers and the Public Health Community.
Griffith Edwards from the National Addiction Centre in London writes that the drinks industry is in danger of joining the tobacco industry in "pariah status". He says that the multinational drinks industry is "targeting young people with alcopops" and denying research evidence "in a way highly reminiscent of the tobacco manufacturers". Funding from the drinks industry should therefore only be taken by researchers at arm's length.
Professor Hurst Hannum, Professor of International Law, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA
Professor Griffith Edwards, Editor in Chief, Addiction, National Addiction Centre, London
"The real conflict is that some still contend that manufacturers of infant formula damagingly compete with breast feeding [...] and that company affiliations affect the independence of health professionals. The counter view is that formula manufacturers [...] answer a clinical need," argues Professor Alan Lucas of the Institute of Child Health. He argues that research into infant nutrition is fast moving and thus requires substantial investment. He believes that formula companies "...provide a critical contribution to infant health care, health education and high quality research."
On the other hand, Patti Rundall concludes that the world is facing many nutritional problems and "...if sustainable solutions are to be found, surely it is imperative that adequate public funds are set aside for this purpose - instead of money that has already be allocated for an entirely different purpose, namely marketing. "
Professor Alan Lucas, MRC Childhood Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Child Health, London
Patti Rundall, International and Policy Co-ordinator, Baby Milk Action, St Andrew's Street, Cambridge