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

The BMJ said the tobacco industry 'has not changed in any fundamental way'
The BMJ said the tobacco industry 'has not changed in any fundamental way'

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.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in