The tobacco industry has funded at least 25 Nobel laureates to maintain scientific doubt

The tobacco industry has funded at least 25 Nobel laureates, for a total of several hundred million dollars, according to Robert Proctor, an American historian and professor at Stanford University.[1]. A specialist in the history of the tobacco industry and author of the seminal work *Golden Holocaust*, he was recently in Barcelona for a seminar organized by the Institució Milà i Fontanals de recherche en sciences humaines (Milan and Fontanals Institute for Research in the Humanities). Among the researchers cited was Stanley Prusiner, an American neurologist and biochemist awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1997 for his discovery of prions. He reportedly received funding from RJ Reynolds, the manufacturer of Camel cigarettes.

According to Robert Proctor, this support enabled the industry to promote research in virology and genetics, thus shifting the debate on the causes of cancer. For several decades, attention was directed toward internal factors (infections, genetic predisposition, or individual behaviors) rather than environmental factors, including exposure to tobacco smoke. The historian believes this approach allows industry to minimize the role of its decisions in the manufacture and marketing of dangerous products, favoring explanations that emphasize individual characteristics.

Responsibility shifted solely onto consumers

Robert Proctor believes that the tobacco industry not only disputes scientific knowledge but also contributes to diverting attention from the risks associated with its products and to individualizing responsibility for illnesses. According to him, the implicit message is to place the sole responsibility for health on consumers, notably by invoking their genetics or personal choices.

He also emphasizes that general awareness of the dangers of smoking does not necessarily mean that the public fully grasps the risks, citing in particular the presence of radioactive polonium in cigarettes and the diverse range of toxic substances contained in tobacco smoke. The historian questions the notion that smokers are always fully informed about the consequences of their consumption, as well as the risks associated with secondhand smoke. During a stay in Barcelona, he recounts being exposed to a significant amount of smoke on a terrace and warns against this exposure, which is considered socially acceptable, highlighting the gap between the social perception of smoking and its health risks.

Controversial arguments in the industry archives

To illustrate the diversionary strategies he describes, Robert Proctor revisits the work of Ronald A. Fisher, a British statistician and geneticist who received funding from the tobacco industry. Fisher notably defended the hypothesis that lung irritation could induce some people to smoke, thus challenging the notion that smoking itself caused cancer. According to Proctor, this hypothesis appears more than 400 times in the industry's internal archives. The historian emphasizes, however, that the motivations of the scientists involved may have varied. Some may have sought funding to further their research, while others may have accepted industry support because it allowed them to finance research aligned with their own scientific interests.

He believes the industry exploits the complexity of the research to maintain uncertainty and obscure the understanding of the risks. He also describes smoking as a "childhood epidemic," noting that initiation frequently occurs during childhood or adolescence and that addiction can persist into adulthood. He cites studies indicating that 90% of smokers wish they had never started, as well as an internal Imperial Tobacco Canada document from the 1980s that compared smoking to alcoholism and emphasized the addictive nature of consumption.

A search engine for consulting industrial archives

To facilitate access to documentary evidence, Stanford University developed Industry Documents Research and Analysis (INDRA), a research tool that uses artificial intelligence to analyze results from several industrial archive collections. The platform allows users to explore the UCSF Industry Documents Library, the Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) archive, and the RJ Reynolds documents. It also provides access to documents from major energy companies.

According to Robert Proctor, the goal is to reduce inequalities in access to information and facilitate the independent review of previously confidential documents. He indicates that the tool allows users to search a database of over 150 million pages, in order to better understand the strategies of large corporations and their influence on the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Access to archives thus constitutes a tool for transparency, but also a means of placing industry discourse within its historical and documentary context. In the field of tobacco, this review addresses a central public health issue: ensuring that prevention policies are based on evidence and that their development is protected from the influence of manufacturers, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

This manipulation of science persists widely today with the "harm reduction" marketing strategy, aimed at helping manufacturers regain market share with new nicotine products (electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco, nicotine pouches, etc.). Since 2008, Researchers affiliated with PMI have published 551 scientific articles on new tobacco and other nicotine products, and 276 for BAT to justify their marketing approach, guide scientific debate, and influence public health decisions.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AD

[1]‘'Tabaksindustrie betaalde 25 Nobelprijswinnaars', TabakNee, published on October 22, 2026, accessed on October 23, 2026

National Committee Against Smoking |