Legislating "Sound Science": The Role of the Tobacco Industry
Annamaria Baba, MPH,
Daniel M. Cook, PhD,
Thomas O. McGarity, JD and
Lisa A. Bero, PhD
At the time of writing, Annamaria Baba was with the Department of Clinical Pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco. Daniel M. Cook is with the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. Thomas O. McGarity is at the University of Texas School of Law, Austin. Lisa A. Bero is at the Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco.
Correspondence: Request for reprints should be sent to Lisa A. Bero, PhD, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Health Policy, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 420, Box 0613, San Francisco, CA 94143 (e-mail: bero{at}medicine.ucsf.edu).
In the late 1990s, in an effort to dispute the link betweensecondhand smoke and lung cancer, Philip Morris initiated acampaign to legislate "sound science." The campaign involvedenacting data access and data quality laws to obtain previouslyconfidential research data in order to reanalyze it based onindustry-generated data quality standards. Philip Morris workedwith other corporate interests to form coalitions and workgroups,develop a "data integrity" outreach program, sponsor symposiaon "research integrity," and draft language for the new acts.
The tobacco industry played a role in establishing laws thatincrease corporate influence on public health and regulatorypolicy decisions.
This article has been cited by other articles:
D. Best, Committee on Environmental Health, Committee on Native American Child Health, and Committee on Adolescence Secondhand and Prenatal Tobacco Smoke Exposure
Pediatrics,
November 1, 2009;
124(5):
e1017 - e1044.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
D. M. Cook and L. A. Bero The Politics of Smoking in Federal Buildings: An Executive Order Case Study
Am J Public Health,
September 1, 2009;
99(9):
1588 - 1595.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
L. Claxton A review of conflict of interest, competing interest, and bias for toxicologists
Toxicology and Industrial Health,
November 1, 2007;
23(10):
557 - 571.
[Abstract][PDF]
D. E. Apollonio and L. A. Bero The Creation of Industry Front Groups: The Tobacco Industry and "Get Government Off Our Back"
Am J Public Health,
March 1, 2007;
97(3):
419 - 427.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
J. A Francis, A. K Shea, and J. M Samet Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses
Tob. Control,
December 1, 2006;
15(suppl_4):
iv68 - iv76.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
L. Rosenstock Protecting special interests in the name of "good science".
JAMA,
May 24, 2006;
295(20):
2407 - 2410.
[Full Text][PDF]
P. A. McDaniel, G. Solomon, and R. E. Malone The Ethics of Industry Experimentation Using Employees: The Case of Taste-Testing Pesticide-Treated Tobacco
Am J Public Health,
January 1, 2006;
96(1):
37 - 46.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
D. Michaels Scientific Evidence and Public Policy
Am J Public Health,
July 1, 2005;
95(S1):
S5 - S7.
[Full Text][PDF]