Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background Tobacco corporation Philip Morris International launched the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), a purportedly independent scientific organisation, in 2017. We aimed to systematically investigate FSFW’s activities and outputs, comparing these with previous industry attempts to influence science, as identified in the recently developed typology of corporate influence on science, the Science for Profit Model (SPM).
Design We prospectively collected data on FSFW over a 4-year period, 2017–2021, and used document analysis to assess whether FSFW’s activities mirror practices tobacco and other industries have historically used to shape science in their own interests. We used the SPM as an analytical framework, working deductively to search for use of the strategies it identifies, and inductively to search for any additional strategies.
Results Marked similarities between FSFW’s practices and previous corporate attempts to influence science were observed, including: producing tobacco industry-friendly research and opinion; obscuring industry involvement in science; funding third parties which denigrate science and scientists that may threaten industry profitability; and promoting tobacco industry credibility.
Conclusions Our paper identifies FSFW as a new vehicle for agnogenesis, indicating that, over 70 years since the tobacco industry began to manipulate science, efforts to protect science from its interference remain inadequate. This, combined with growing evidence that other industries are engaging in similar practices, illustrates the urgent need to develop more robust systems to protect scientific integrity.
- Tobacco industry documents
- Tobacco industry
- Surveillance and monitoring
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information.
Footnotes
X @bathtr
Contributors All three authors conceived of the paper. TL collected, read and analysed the documents. TL drafted the paper, to which substantial contributions were then made by AG and BC. All authors revised the paper. All authors take responsibility for the content of the paper. TL is responsible for the overall content as guarantor
Funding The majority of TL’s time spent on this research was supported by the South West Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTP). TL and AG also acknowledge the support of Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products project funding (www.bloomberg.org).
Disclaimer The opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests In this paper’s section on ‘Influence on the interpretation of science’, we refer to a report on FSFW and PMI which FSFW described as containing 'false narratives' about FSFW. TL and AG are coauthors of this report.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.