UK medical journals will no longer consider research funded by tobacco industry
Decision marks a U-turn for the BMJ, which published a tobacco industry-funded study in 2003
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The editors of Britain’s leading medical journal and its sister publications have announced they will no longer consider research that is funded by the tobacco industry.
The British Medical Journal, along with Heart, Thorax, and BMJ Open join a number other journals which have already ruled out industry-funded research.
In a strongly-worded critique of the tobacco industry, published in BMJ Open, they argue that cigarette manufacturers have “used research to deliberately produce ignorance and to advance its ultimate goal of selling its deadly products, while shoring up its damaged legitimacy.”
Leading journals including the US-based Public Library of Science publications PLoS Medicine, PLoS One, PLoS Biology already refuse to publish studies paid for by tobacco companies.
The decision will come as a blow to the tobacco industry. Publication of a study in the BMJ or an associated journal is an internationally-recognised rubber stamp of legitimacy, but editors said there was “a growing body of evidence” that sources of funding were influencing research outcomes.
It also marks a u-turn for the BMJ, which published a tobacco industry-funded study in 2003, a decision which was defended by the then-editor Richard Smith as “pro-debate and pro-science”.
However, Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ, and her fellow editors said it was “time to cease supporting the now discredited notion that tobacco industry-funded research is just like any other research.”
“The tobacco industry has not changed in any fundamental way, and the cigarette – the single most deadly consumer product ever made – remains widely available and aggressively marketed,” the write.
“Refusing to publish research funded by the tobacco industry affirms our fundamental commitment not to allow our journals to be used in the service of an industry that continues to perpetuate the most deadly disease epidemic of our times.”
Martin Dockerell, director of research and policy at the anti-smoking charity ASH said: “The tobacco industry has a long history of manipulating and distorting the scientific debate. They have funded research and researchers to undermine the strong scientific evidence of the harm tobacco causes.
During the campaign for Smoke Free legislation, there was a lot of research into the economic impact of going smoke free. Once you eliminated research from the tobacco industry, it actually appeared that the impact would be moderately positive, and so it has turned out.”
The UK Tobacco Manufacturer’s Association was unable to respond to a request for comment.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments