Philip Morris and Scientific Research: Investigation Reveals Persistent Influence

A survey conducted by AT-Suisse[1] highlights the involvement of Philip Morris International (PMI) in scientific research conducted at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ). Behind a study on the effects of benzopyrene, a carcinogen present in tobacco smoke, are undisclosed funding, direct participation of PMI employees in the work, and use of the results for strategic purposes.

This situation illustrates the tobacco industry's practice of relying on academic research to support its arguments in favor of new tobacco products without revealing that it is behind the studies in question.

The collaborations between PMI and ETHZ are not limited to this study on benzopyrene. The investigation also reveals that joint research projects were already funded in 2017 and 2018, including work on tobacco and nicotine products. This private funding was in addition to public subsidies, raising questions about compliance with funding source disclosure requirements in scientific research.

Opaque financing and direct involvement of Philip Morris

The ETH Zurich study focuses on benzopyrene, a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon produced during the combustion of organic matter and identified as one of the main carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Its role in the development of lung cancer is well established, particularly due to its impact on DNA, where it causes alterations that can promote the appearance of cancerous mutations. The researchers' goal was to precisely analyze these mechanisms by mapping the sites of genetic modification induced by this substance.

The investigation revealed that Philip Morris International (PMI) contributed more than one million Swiss francs to fund this work, a contribution that was not declared to other funders, including the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). The ETH Zurich researchers thus applied for public grants without disclosing their partnership with PMI, an omission that violates the SNSF's transparency requirements, which prohibit any concealment of funding sources.

PMI's influence was not limited to financial support. Three company employees were among the six authors who designed and supervised the study, a fact that raises questions about the independence of the research and the possibility of biasing the results in favor of the tobacco company's interests. Shortly after, a second study, conducted by the same team in collaboration with PMI, was published, this time fully funded by the company, reinforcing questions about the objectivity of the first study and the exact nature of this collaboration.

The study was initially published without explicit mention of PMI's role in the design of the work. It was only after external criticism that a correction was made in the journal. ACS Central Science, reformulating the funding statement. However, this update did not clarify the extent of PMI's involvement or dispel doubts about the company's actual influence in shaping scientific results.

Research infiltration, part of the tobacco industry's overall strategy

PMI's involvement in this research is part of a broader effort to legitimize its new tobacco products and influence perceptions of their harm. By funding an academic study on a specific component of cigarette smoke, the company is shaping the scientific debate by highlighting the reduction of certain toxic substances in its alternative products, including e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products like IQOS.

For several years, PMI has been promoting the idea that these alternatives are less harmful than traditional cigarettes. The company promotes products that eliminate the combustion of tobacco, which would reduce the production of toxic substances such as benzopyrene. In its marketing communications, PMI claims, for example, that benzopyrene emissions are reduced by 95 to 96 % with IQOS, a figure that remains controversial in the absence of independent studies confirming this reduction.

Funding research on benzopyrene allows PMI to produce data that can be used in its scientific and commercial arguments. The company incorporates these studies into its communications to support the idea of "reduced risk," while maintaining the production and marketing of traditional cigarettes.

The tobacco industry's infiltration of scientific research is part of a long-standing strategy to downplay the risks associated with smoking. In the 1980s and 1990s, tobacco companies secretly funded researchers to publish biased studies denying the dangers of secondhand smoke. The goal was to prevent the adoption of public smoking bans, the only way to effectively protect the population from exposure to secondhand smoke.

The Rylander affair, revealed in 2001, perfectly illustrates these practices. That year, Pascal Diethelm, a former WHO executive, uncovered documents demonstrating that a professor at the Geneva Faculty of Medicine, Ragnar Rylander, had been secretly collaborating with Philip Morris for thirty years. His role consisted of organizing pseudoscientific conferences and producing publications in line with the tobacco industry's expectations, aimed at sowing doubt about the toxicity of secondhand smoke.[2].

This approach is part of a historical continuity of the tobacco industry's strategies. In the past, efforts were initially focused on disputing the risks associated with tobacco; the tobacco industry's infiltration of research was significant in the 1980s and 1990s to deny the dangers of passive smoking, with the covert funding of researchers publishing biased studies. The objective was clearly to prevent the adoption of any smoking ban measure, the only one likely to truly protect against exposure to secondhand smoke. Today, the tobacco company is placing emphasis on promoting products considered "less harmful."

An involvement that has consequences for public health

These strategies contribute to a significant distortion of the scientific consensus on the health effects of tobacco. By amplifying the research they fund, tobacco manufacturers artificially create a climate of controversy, suggesting a scientific disagreement that does not exist on the dangers of smoking heated tobacco.

Relying on the rhetoric of "good science," they demand excessively high levels of evidence to recognize the many risks of tobacco, setting methodological criteria that are difficult to achieve. This approach allows them to delay recognition of the risks associated with their products and to question independent studies that clearly establish their harmfulness.

The impact of these strategies is considerable. They weaken public health messages by creating uncertainty, making it difficult to convey clear and understandable warnings to the general public and decision-makers. This confusion directly benefits industry by delaying stricter regulations and thwarting legal action against it. These practices also raise serious ethical questions about the influence of private interests on the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Scientific collaborations requiring stricter supervision

Many scientific journals and institutions have implemented strict regulations governing tobacco industry funding. Publications such as the BMJ and PLOS Medicine refuse to publish studies funded by tobacco companies, and some universities prohibit such funding to ensure the independence of academic research.

In a context where new tobacco and nicotine products are regularly introduced onto the market, the issue of funding for academic studies by companies in the sector remains a concern. The case of ETHZ and PMI illustrates the challenges posed by these collaborations and underlines the need for increased transparency to ensure the integrity of scientific research.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Ruggia, L. (2025). Benzopyrene, smoke and money. The perfect Philip Morris International recipe for toxic scientific research. Bern: Swiss Association for Tobacco Control.

[2] Infiltration: A Mole in the Pay of Philip Morris, Sophie Malka and Marco Gregori, 2005

National Committee Against Smoking |