Smoke Rings
The tobacco industry duped both academic journals and the media.
In 1998, as part of a settlement of a class action against the tobacco companies in the US, the firms were obliged to place their internal documents in a public archive. Among them is the one I came across last month. It is a memo from an executive in the corporate services department of Philip Morris - the world’s largest tobacoo company - to one of her colleagues. The title is “Arise 1994-95 Activities and Funding”(12).
“I had a meeting,” she began, “with Charles Hay and Jacqui Smithson (Rothmans) to agree on the 1994-1995 activity plan for Arise and to discuss the funding needed. Enclosed is a copy of our presentation.”
This showed that in the previous financial year, Arise had received $373,400. Of this, $2000 had come from Coca-cola, $900 from other firms and the remainder from Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, RJ Reynolds and Rothmans(13). Over 99% of its funding, in other words, had been provided by the tobacco companies.
For 1994-95, Arise’s budget would be $773,750. Rothmans and RJ Reynolds had each committed to provide $200,000 of this, and BAT “has also shown interest”. She suggested that Philip Morris put up $300,000. Then the memo becomes even more interesting.
“The previous ‘Naughty but Nice’ Mori poll proved to be very effective in getting wide media coverage. The exercise will be repeated this year on the theme of ‘Stress in the Workplace’ … A draft questionnaire was already submitted to T. Andrade and M. Winokur for comments.” (Tony Andrade was Philip Morris’s senior lawyer(14), and Matt Winokur its director of regulatory affairs(15)). “We decided to hold,” it continued, Arise’s next conference in Europe, because of the “positive European media coverage”(16). Philip Morris had appointed a London PR agency to run the media operation, set up Arise’s secretariat and help to recruit new members. Arise’s “major spending authorisation and approval would be handled by an ‘informal’ Budget Committee involving PM, Rothmans and possibly RJR and BAT.”(17)
The memo suggests, in other words, that Arise was run and managed not by eminent scientists but by eminent tobacco companies. This impression is reinforced by another document in the tobacco archive, which explains how the group began. “In 1988 the US Surgeon General said: “Nicotine was as addictive as heroin or cocaine.” The industry responded. A group of academics was identified and called together to: - review the science of substance abuse, - separate nicotine from these substances”(18).
I sent a list of questions to Professor Warburton, but he told me that he did not have time to answer them(19). Reading University replied that it knew Professor Warburton’s work had been sponsored by the tobacco companies. Indeed, the university itself had received over £300,000 from Arise, though “from the University’s standpoint, the source of funding for Arise has always been vague”(20). It revealed that “Professor Warburton and the University of Reading were in receipt of BAT research funding between 1995 and 2003.” But at no time had it questioned this funding or sought to oblige Warburton to declare his interests in academic papers. Astonishingly, it suggested that this would amount to “censorship” and “restricting academic freedom”(21).
The journal Psychopharmacology told me that it was unaware that Professor Warburton had been taking money from the tobacco companies. “It is an author’s responsibilty to disclose sources of funding, and widely understood that journals themselves do not expect to police this declaration.”(22)
After a long career untroubled by questions about his interests or his professional ethics, David Warburton retired in 2003. He still lectures at Reading as Emeritus Professor.
How much more science is being published in academic journals with undeclared interests like these? How many more media campaigns against “over-regulation”, the “compensation culture” or “unfounded public fears” have been secretly funded and steered by corporations? How many more undeclared recipients of corporate money have been appearing on the Today programme, providing free public relations for their sponsors? This case suggests to me that both academia and the media have failed dismally to exercise sufficient scepticism. Surely there is one obvious question with which every journal and every journalist should begin. “Who’s funding you?”
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. Arise, 28th September 1993. Scientists meet in Brussels to reflect on the quality of life. Press release. Document 2023437459. http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023437459-7460.pdf
2. ibid.
3. PR Newswire Europe Ltd, 7th November 1996. ’90s Guilt-Trap Could Threaten UK Health, Say Scientists.
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=16552
4. ABC News, 19th April 2000. Eat, drink and be healthy. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s119688.htm
5. Arise, March 1994. Media Coverage. Document 2025500665. http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025500665-0956.pdf
6. Sue Pleming, 24th September 1993. Health puritans accused of ruining quality of life. Reuters.
7. Today programme, 25th September 1993. BBC Radio 4.
8. Sheila Keating, 23rd October 2004. Relax your diet. The Times.
9. Madeleine Bunting, 12th November 1994. Eat, drink,and be very provocative. The Guardian.
10. David M. Warburton, April 1989. Is nicotine use an addiction? The Psychologist.
11. D.M.Warburton, September 1992. Nicotine issues. Editorial. Psychopharmacology Vol 108 number 4; D.M.Warburton, J.M.Rusted, J.Fowler, September 1992. A comparison of the attentional and consolidation hypotheses for the facilitation of memory by nicotine. Psychopharmacology Vol 108 number 4; D.M.Warburton and C.Arnall, August 1994. Improvements in performance without nicotine withdrawal. Psychopharmacology Vol 115 number 4; Jennifer Rusted, Lida Graupner, David Warburton, June 1995. Effects of post-trial administration of nicotine on human memory: evaluating the conditions for improving memory, Psychopharmacology, Vol 119, number 4; Hazel M. Gilbert and David M. Warburton, 2000. Craving: a problematic concept in smoking research. Addiction Research, Vol 8, no 4; David M. Warburton, Abigail Skinner, Christopher D. Martin, 2001. Improved incidental memory with nicotine after semantic processing, but not after phonological processing. Psychopharmacology Vol 153 no 2; David M. Warburton, 2002. Commentary on: “Effects of scopolamine and nicotine on human rapid information processing performance.” Psychopharmacology Vol 162 no 4.
12. Helene Lyberopoulos, 13th June 1994. ARISE 1994-95 Activities and Funding. Philip Morris Corporate Services Inc. Document 2024208096. http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024208096-8099.pdf.
13. ibid.
14. See http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/24415.html
15. See http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385351.html
16. Helene Lyberopoulos, ibid.
17. ibid.
18. Arise, probably September 1993. No title. Document number 2504092465. http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2504092465-2482.html
19. Email from David Warburton, 22nd January 2006. d.m.warburton@reading.ac.uk
20. Email from Sue Rayner, 2nd February 2006. s.j.rayner@reading.ac.uk
21. ibid.
22. Email from Dr. Andrea Pillmann, Editor, Biomedical Sciences, Springer Verlag GmbH, 30th January 2006. Andrea.Pillmann@springer.com