The Scientific Opacity of PMI's Smoke-Free World Foundation

The Smoke-Free Foundation, fully funded by Philip Morris International (PMI), seeks to minimize and hide its ties to its sponsor in order to publish in respected scientific journals. The findings of a paper published in the journal Tobacco Control demonstrate that the foundation is following in the footsteps of front groups designed to promote the interests of tobacco companies.[1].

Tobacco Control researchers analyzed three attempts by the Smoke-Free World Foundation to publish in scientific journals. On several occasions, the foundation sought to hide its direct ties to Philip Morris International, including by presenting itself as an independent nonprofit. According to the researchers, the foundation went so far as to draw parallels between its funding methods and those of organizations such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the anti-smoking organization Truth Initiative. While both organizations do receive funding from the tobacco industry, the difference with the Smoke-Free World Foundation is fundamental. For the FDA and Truth Initiative, this funding is coerced, and follows condemnations from the industry, while for the foundation, this funding is voluntary.

A flawed system for declaring conflicts of interest

Furthermore, according to the journal Tobacco Control, the current mode of declaring conflicts of interest does not work effectively. In particular, the researchers point out that the organizations funded by the foundation do not systematically declare their links with it or with Philip Morris and the declaration policies are not standardized. Then, the foundation does not act transparently and seeks to take control of the editorial processes of the journals in which it wishes to publish. Thus, the foundation seeks to publish in journals with less strict declaration policies, or publish in open publication platforms, allowing them to choose their own evaluators. Finally, the foundation takes over a large part of the research results initially produced by Philip Morris, thus masking their industrial origin.

Making the conflict of interest with the tobacco industry a specific conflict

For the authors of the article, scientific journals should ask researchers explicitly and specifically whether or not they have a conflict of interest with the tobacco industry, and whether the research has been funded by the tobacco companies, partially or fully, directly or indirectly. Furthermore, the article puts forward the option of not allowing authors to declare their possible conflicts of interest themselves, but of using an external database that lists all financial links between the world of research and the tobacco industry.

More and more arguments in favour of the dissolution of the foundation

The tobacco industry's strategy of infiltrating the scientific world dates back to the 1950s. To minimize the risks of tobacco consumption, or those of passive smoking, cigarette companies have set up structures presented as independent, but in reality intended to produce alternative science in order to maintain doubt about scientific evidence and delay as much as possible the implementation of effective regulations. In particular, the tobacco industry was at the origin of the creation of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) and the Tobacco Institute in the 1950s, as well as the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) in the 1980s. In 1998, in the context of a dispute between tobacco companies and 46 American states, it was recognized that these structures were intended to disinformation on the dangers of tobacco, leading to their dissolution. In a second article published by Tobacco Control, in response to this analysis, tobacco control researchers recall the need to isolate scientific publication and the development of public policies from the influence of cigarette companies.[2].

[1] Legg T, Legendre M, Gilmore A. Paying lip service to publication ethics: scientific publishing practices and the foundation for a smoke-free world. Tobacco Control 2021. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056003

National Committee Against Smoking |