James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. Update
Secondhand Smoke Revisited!
Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research; Combatting Lysenko Pseudoscience
By James Enstrom
Abstract: This analysis presents a detailed defense of my epidemiologic research in the May 17, 2003 British Medical Journal that found no significant relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality. In order to defend the honesty and scientific integrity of my research, I have identified and addressed in a detailed manner several unethical and erroneous attacks on this research. Specifically, I have demonstrated that this research is not "fatally flawed," that I have not made "inappropriate use" of the underlying database, and that my findings agree with other United States results on this relationship. My research suggests, contrary to popular claims, that there is not a causal relationship between ETS and mortality in the U.S. responsible for 50,000 excess annual deaths, but rather there is a weak and inconsistent relationship. The popular claims tend to damage the credibility of epidemiology.
In addition, I address the omission of my research from the 2006 Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking and the inclusion of it in a massive U.S. Department of Justice racketeering lawsuit. I refute erroneous statements made by powerful U.S. epidemiologists and activists about me and my research and I defend the funding used to conduct this research. Finally, I compare current ETS epidemiology in the U.S. with pseudoscience in the Soviet U nion during the period of Trofim Devisovich Lysenko. Overall, this paper is intended to defend legitimate research against illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it because it does not support their ideological and political agendas. Hopefully, this defense will help other scientists defend their legitimate research and combat "Lysenko pseudoscience."" (James E. Enstrom, Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 2007, 4:11 doi:10.1186/1742-5573-4-11)
UC faculty votes to keep Big Tobacco sponsorships
Academic freedom cited as reason for voteBy: Bo Hee Kim
5/16/07
After several months of discussion, the University of California faculty has voted to continue to allow researchers to accept funding from tobacco-related companies, voting May 9 to reject a proposal to ban tobacco-related funding 43-4. "There are concerns about the tobacco industry promoting information that may obscure what's actually real," said Linda Bisson, chair of the Academic Senate at UC Davis. "Tobacco companies have been known to manipulate and misrepresent data. There are ways to market data incorrectly, so as to make it appear in favor of smoking." Bisson said the ban was introduced by researchers at UC San Francisco who are activists against the misrepresentation of data by tobacco companies. "On the UC Davis campus, the tobacco companies funding the research have not tried to affect the results," Bisson said. "We haven't heard any reports of them trying to sway results. The only advantage they have from funding the researchers is that they receive the research before the public, in separate reports, to help them prepare for what might be the next angle against them." There are currently nine active grants from tobacco-related companies at UC Davis. Barry Klein, vice chancellor of the Office of Research at UC Davis, said it is important to note the concern about the ban is not about harmful effects of smoking; it is about another issue altogether. "I am very much against smoking and urge all people, young and old, to avoid smoking," said Klein in an e-mail interview. "Banning research funding from tobacco companies is a separate issue of academic freedom." Bisson agreed that the issue of academic freedom was the biggest at hand. "The faculty is currently free to accept research [funding] from anyone regardless of how [the donor] stands politically," Bisson said. "The bottom line is that if you don't trust [the researchers], then they shouldn't be working here." Bisson said even though there are instances of misrepresentation by the tobacco companies as well as instances of "swaying" the results, other researchers would have been negatively affected had this bill passed. "There are valid researchers who would have been impacted and lost their funding," Bisson said. Klein supported the decision of the Academic Senate. "I am supportive of the recommendation of the UC faculty that within broad guidelines, that include the freedom to publish and free speech, decisions on accepting research awards should follow the good judgment of our faculty," Klein said. "I trust our faculty members' diligence and integrity and prefer not to broadly stigmatize every research award from tobacco-related companies," he said. "The proposed regents' resolution would open the door to second-guessing our research faculty, a result that could politicize research awards and stifle many good things that flow from our university." Read
Stanford divided on tobacco dollars TOP ACADEMICS DEBATE USE OF INDUSTRY MONEY 05/06/2007 By Lisa M. Krieger A group of prominent Stanford University academics are urging the school to reject money from the tobacco industry, triggering a prickly debate about the best way to safeguard the integrity of a university's research, reputation and academic freedoms. Read
Stigma of tobacco splits faculty
Hennessy finds himself opposite Pizzo in FacSen April 20, 2007
By Nick Parker Tensions ran high at yesterday afternoon’s Faculty Senate meeting as members butted heads over a proposed resolution that would bar tobacco companies from funding University-sponsored research projects. Introduced by Electrical Engineering Prof. Bernd Girod, chair of the Committee on Research, the resolution elicited strong reactions on both sides of the debate. Some administrators and faculty members called the motion a moral obligation while others condemned it as setting a dangerous precedent. The resolution — which proposes that “Stanford University will not enter into sponsored research agreements with companies that make or market tobacco products” — passed by a 7-5 margin in the Committee on Research. It was sponsored by History Prof. Robert Proctor and co-signed by Medical School Prof. Robert Jackler and Law Prof. Hank Greely ‘74. Supporters of the resolution said the University has an obligation to disassociate itself from the tobacco industry, which they said manipulates University research for its own ends. “[Tobacco companies] never fund projects that would implicate themselves,” Girod said. “They select projects that help them develop theories about alternative explanations for tobacco-related diseases, such as air pollution or genetic predisposition.” Greely also voiced strong support for the proposal and castigated tobacco companies as disingenuous. “Using the guise of academic research, [the tobacco industry] has perverted academic research to its own ends for 50 years,” he said. “The tobacco industry is using Stanford to whitewash [itself]. They are using us for their nefarious ends, and we should stop it.” “If any human endeavor deserves the term ‘evil,’” he added, “I think the tobacco industry probably deserves it.” The resolution’s opponents, however, said that prohibiting tobacco industry-funded research could lead to a slippery slope for the banning of more research. “It’s dangerous to target a specific industry,” said Civil and Environmental Engineering Prof. Jeffrey Koseff MS ‘78. “Who’s to judge what comes next? This time it’s tobacco. Next it could be alcohol; it could be oil.” Provost John Etchemendy Ph.D. ‘82 agreed, arguing that preventing tobacco companies from funding University-sponsored research could create a troubling precedent. “If we were to go this way, I think we would get similar efforts to ban funding from oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, the Department of Defense,” he said. “Changing research policy is not a good way to make a statement.” President John Hennessy denounced the resolution, calling it “political.” “This is a political message, and I am very concerned that we are changing our academic policy to send a political message,” he said. “And I worry about whether or not that is a wise change in our policy.” Medical School Dean Philip Pizzo disagreed with Hennessy, saying he supported the resolution on ethical grounds. “There is a difference between the tobacco industry and any other industry that exists today,” he said. “I don’t agree that this is political or politics per se.” The Senate did not vote on the resolution yesterday and has yet to decide when it will discuss the matter further. The Steering Committee will make that decision at their meeting on Tuesday. Read
Enstrom Cleared of Scientific Misconduct Charges; American Cancer Society Owes Him An Apology 3/30/07 By Michael Siegel
After an internal investigation, the University of California has cleared UCLA professor and epidemiologist Dr. James Enstrom of all charges of scientific misconduct - charges that were leveled by the American Cancer Society. According to an article in a recent issue of Nature, the American Cancer Society (ACS) had accused Dr. Enstrom of scientific misconduct in his role in a 2003 British Medical Journal study which questioned the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer among nonsmokers. That article - which used data from the ACS Cancer Prevention Study and found no significant increase in lung cancer risk associated with exposure to spousal smoking - has received massive publicity, serving as the focal point for a campaign to eliminate tobacco industry funding of research at the University of California. According to the article, the accusation from the ACS prompted an internal University investigation to determine whether any scientific misconduct occurred: "The latest round of debate began last autumn when the chief executive of the American Cancer Society, John Seffrin, wrote a letter to the University of California's board of regents arguing that tobacco funding should be banned. In the 12 October letter, Seffrin argued that tobacco-funded front groups "publicized misleading results" while giving "the false implication" that the society had endorsed the study. He cited Enstrom's BMJ article in particular, alleging that Enstrom "ignored" complaints of "fundamental methodological problems". ... Wyatt Hume, provost at the University of California's president's office, wrote to Seffrin saying that the university "takes allegations of scientific misconduct extremely seriously". If there is "specific information in support of an allegation of scientific misconduct against Enstrom", he wrote, he would relay it to officials at the Los Angeles campus so that they "can pursue the matter further". Shortly after, officials at the cancer society sent a seven-page list of what they cited as issues with the BMJ article." Both authors of the study -- Dr. Enstrom and Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, formerly of SUNY Stony Brook, vehemently denied any scientific misconduct:
"In an interview, Enstrom acknowledged receiving the various letters and corresponding with the University of California's authorities. "I am working on this with regents' approval," he said. "I am being allowed to defend myself by the appropriate people." He "absolutely" denies any misconduct in the study. And Kabat objects to the university's regent policies being based "on allegations motivated by a political agenda and unsupported by any facts"."The internal investigation failed to find any evidence of scientific misconduct. Dr. Enstrom was officially cleared in a March 22 letter from UC Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic and Health Affairs Wyatt R. Hume, who wrote: "Chancellor Abrams initiated a thorough review of the materials forwarded by Dr. Thun. He asked two senior campus officials, both of them scientists, to independently review the materials. Both officials independently reached the conclusion that these materials provide no evidence of scientific misconduct."
"The materials Dr. Thun provided reflect the robust debate in the scientific literature about the research methodologies used by Dr. Enstrom in conducting the work that was the basis for the 2003 article published in the British Medical Journal. Disagreements regarding research methodology, and disputes about the soundness of scientific conclusions do not, however, constitute scientific misconduct. There is room for vehement and heartfelt disagreement about the soundness of particular scientific analysis and conclusions, and the scientific and academic community has well-established mechanisms for judging which results are ultimately deemed to withstand lose and sustained scientific scrutiny."The Rest of the Story
As I stated in my commentary on this issue, the presence of deficiencies in research (taking the ACS position to be true) and the publication of results that do not accord with the views of others does not represent scientific misconduct. Taking money from the tobacco companies is not scientific misconduct. While the ACS has every right to criticize the methodology of the study and dispute its findings and conclusions, it is inappropriate to attack the researcher - and to charge him with scientific misconduct - rather than to focus on the research. In this case, there was no scientific misconduct. Since Dr. Enstrom has now been cleared of these charges, I believe that the American Cancer Society owes him an apology. In the academic community, scientific misconduct charges are taken very seriously and these charges could literally ruin someone's career. Thus, if a group ends up falsely bringing scientific misconduct charges against a researcher, they certainly owe him an apology for making what turns out to be false charges that could have ruined his career. What the American Cancer Society has done amounts to character assassination. If they want to criticize the research itself, point out methodologic flaws, or attack the tobacco companies for using this kind of research in a campaign to undermine public health messages about the harms of smoking or secondhand smoke, then that's fine. They have every right to do that. But to issue the attack on the individual researcher and attempt to denigrate the character of that individual by making what amount to false allegations of scientific misconduct is not appropriate. Read
UC to review the tobacco industry's funding of research James Enstrom, who studies the effects of smoking at UCLA's School of Public Health, receives money from cigarette makers. He has become a symbol for activists who hope to bar the practice. March 27, 2007
By Richard C. Paddock, Times Staff Writer For more than three decades, epidemiologist James Enstrom has labored quietly at UCLA, studying the effect of tobacco smoke on human health. In recent years, his work has challenged the conventional view that second-hand smoke poses a serious health risk. He calls himself a lone wolf, a maverick and a rebel. His critics call him a turncoat. Enstrom once worked closely with the American Cancer Society, but today his sponsor is the tobacco industry. Over the last 15 years, he has received $1.4 million plus undisclosed consulting fees from the industry while producing research that supports industry views. One study used the American Cancer Society's database to contend that second-hand smoke was not a serious health hazard. Now Enstrom has become a symbol of industry influence for activists who support a proposal to bar University of California researchers from receiving tobacco industry money. The regents will take up the issue in May. Mirroring divisions elsewhere in UC, some university regents back a ban, while others oppose it on grounds of academic freedom. The 63-year-old Enstrom maintains that he is simply a scholar in "pursuit of truth." "If I was so corrupt, how could I survive for 33 years at UCLA?" he asks. "The effort is to smear me and libel me." Unfortunately for Enstrom, much of his correspondence with the tobacco industry became public during lawsuits filed by government agencies against the companies. Some of his letters are more revealing than he would have wished. Seven months ago, his research and correspondence were cited by a federal judge in a racketeering case as evidence of the tobacco industry's manipulation of the scientific process. In January, the ethics of his research were called into question at a public meeting of the UC Board of Regents. Enstrom, tall, forceful and passionate, believes the proposed ban at UC is aimed personally at him and says he is being vilified by a powerful lobby that places "political correctness" above science. He denies that tobacco money influenced his results, says no one has found errors in his calculations and contends that other studies corroborate his findings. "It's unfortunate to end up in a racketeering lawsuit for writing an article in a British medical journal," he said ruefully. University officials have kept their distance from Enstrom but note that he has faced tremendous pressure from his critics. "In some sense I will stand up for Dr. Enstrom," said Roberto Peccei, UCLA vice chancellor for research. "He's got all these people beating on him. I'm not here to defend him, but I do think he was hit by a Mack truck." Enstrom went into the field of health research by chance. A native of Alhambra, he earned a doctorate in physics at Stanford University. He was doing post-doctoral work at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory when he happened on a map showing cancer rates in the U.S. He was intrigued to see that Utah had the lowest incidence of all 50 states. Theorizing that Utah fared better because Mormons don't smoke or drink, he began collecting cancer data in his spare time. In 1973, he abandoned physics and got a post-doctoral fellowship in epidemiology at UCLA. In 1975, he produced a well-received study funded by the American Cancer Society concluding that Mormons in California had lower cancer rates than other Californians. He has remained at UCLA since, not on faculty but as a researcher in the School of Public Health. He receives no salary and has no university staff but supports himself through grants and contracts, using the money to hire part-time assistants. During the first half of his career in epidemiology, he received funding from the cancer society and collaborated with two of its top scientists. In the late 1980s, the society gave him permission to use data from a survey of 1 million Americans conducted between 1959 and 1972. But by 1992, the society deemed his work marginal and refused to fund more research. A grant from the state's anti-smoking fund was short-lived. Enstrom said he reluctantly turned to the tobacco industry. "If you want to do research, you have to get money from somewhere," says Enstrom, a lifelong nonsmoker from a family of nonsmokers. "In an ideal world, I would not have taken it." According to documents filed by prosecutors in the racketeering case, Enstrom received $94,500 from the industry between 1992 and 1997, becoming "a key tobacco industry researcher and consultant." From 1993 to 1996, he also worked as a consultant for the North Carolina law firm of Womble Carlyle, analyzing other scientists' studies for Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds. He declines to say how much he was paid. Despite his industry funding, Enstrom kept the cancer society data. In 1996, he sought industry funds to use the data to study the effect of second-hand smoke by analyzing the cause of death of survey participants who never smoked but were married to smokers. The society had earlier rejected his plan, noting that there had been no follow-up since 1972 to learn whether subjects had remained married or changed their smoking habits. "I told him repeatedly that the results would not be meaningful," said Michael Thun, the American Cancer Society's chief epidemiologist. Without informing the society, Enstrom asked Philip Morris for funding. In a letter to the company — cited in court documents — he wrote: "A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] and active smoking." Enstrom says the letter was part of the normal grant process and his words were "taken out of context" by the court. In 1997 and 1998, he received three grants from the tobacco industry totaling $700,000, most of it for his study using the cancer society database. Industry officials also lined up a coauthor, Geoffrey Kabat of the American Health Foundation in New York, court documents show. Thun alleges that Enstrom misled the cancer society by not alerting the group when he began seeking industry funds or disclosing that he had begun receiving the money. "He's a double agent, really," Thun said. Enstrom denies misleading anyone. "I told the American Cancer Society in 1998 that I got tobacco funding," he said. "There was no reason to tell them in 1992 because I was not using their data." In 2003, Enstrom and Kabat published their study in the British Medical Journal concluding that the link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. Since then, the tobacco industry has cited the study — and its connection to the American Cancer Society and UCLA — when arguing against local smoking bans. "They are misusing the research process," said Thun, "by sponsoring invalid studies and then using them as part of their public relations campaign." Among Enstrom's harshest detractors was another UC scientist: UC San Francisco professor Stanton Glantz, a bulldog of an activist who has fought the tobacco industry for decades. Glantz and the cancer society blasted Enstrom's assumptions as flawed. In a radio interview, Glantz called his findings "crap." In July 2005, Enstrom brought charges of misconduct against Glantz, alleging he made "blatantly false statements" about Enstrom. After an eight-month inquiry by UC officials, Glantz was exonerated. Last August, Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry took on a higher profile when U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington, D.C., ruled in a lawsuit that had been in court for seven years that the major U.S. cigarette companies were guilty of racketeering, a crime usually associated with the Mafia. Kessler concluded that the companies conspired for decades to deceive the public and had manipulated research to make it appear that scientists disagreed on the effects of second-hand smoke. As evidence, she cited the study by Enstrom and Kabat. Enstrom's inclusion in the lawsuit has made him Exhibit A in the continuing clash between anti-smoking activists and tobacco companies as the battle shifts to academic research, one of the last bastions of tobacco industry influence in the U.S. Across the nation, more than 20 academic institutions have banned tobacco industry funding of tobacco research. Within the 10-campus University of California, seven academic units attempted to ban tobacco funding in 2004, including the UCLA School of Nursing, but were overruled by UC President Robert Dynes, who said the schools lacked that authority. Opponents of the ban maintain that academic freedom means researchers should be free to study whatever they wish and to receive money from whomever they want. Under UC's code of conduct, researchers can accept money from any source to finance their work. UC does not review any research projects except to ensure that human and animal subjects are not mistreated. "There is no oversight at all," said Peccei, the vice chancellor. Enstrom says there is no reason to restrict research money because the peer review process safeguards scientific integrity. The issue came to a head at the January meeting of the Board of Regents. Glantz, described by one regent as a "national treasure," presented the argument for the ban. Enstrom, listening in on the Internet from UCLA, bristled at the praise showered on Glantz. "Basically, we have a group of racketeers funding research," Glantz told the regents. Unable to reach consensus, the regents agreed to reconsider the issue in May. Regent John Moores argued in an interview that that taking tobacco money damages UC's reputation. Of researchers who take tobacco money, he added, "I don't know how these people live with themselves." According to UC, scientists at four campuses — UCLA, Berkeley, Davis and San Diego — are getting $15.8 million from Philip Morris for 19 tobacco-related research projects. For a study on smoking and mortality, Enstrom is receiving $661,443. In October, the American Cancer Society wrote to the regents, urging them to adopt the ban and accusing Enstrom of "scientific misconduct." After a two-month inquiry, the university concluded March 22 that evidence provided by the group did not show misconduct. Enstrom recently founded the Scientific Integrity Institute to air his views. He says it gets no tobacco money and consists mainly of a website, www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org. The website mounts a spirited and lengthy defense of his life's work. "The American Cancer Society turned on me because they didn't like my results," he said. "It's outrageous what they have done." Read
Dr Enstrom states the conclusions of the 2006 Surgeon generals report are exaggerated
One must scroll about half way down to see where Dr Enstrom says , among other things, that the referees of the 2006 SG Report did not disclose conflicts of interest, and the other main point is that studies published as recently as 2006 were included, but not his study, which was published in 2003.
DR. Enstrom has recalculated the results of the 2006 Surgeon General's report, with his 35,000 Californians study and another important study included, and he found:
"Given the fact that the two largest epidemiologic studies on ETS and tobacco-related mortality (1,41) have been omitted from the Surgeon General’s Report and the fact that these two studies substantially weaken the ETS and mortality relationship in the US, the Forward of the Surgeon General’s Report makes the inaccurate statement that “In 2005, it is estimated that exposure to secondhand smoke kills more than 3,000 adult nonsmokers from lung cancer, approximately 46,000 from coronary heart disease, . . . .” Based on a complete and objective evaluation of all the peer-reviewed US epidemiologic evidence, a more appropriate statement is that ETS exposure is associated with a small fraction of lung cancer and CHD deaths in US never smokers."
Read: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY INSTITUTE The Scientific Integrity Institute has been established to complement the epidemiologic research conducted by Dr. James Enstrom at the University of California, Los Angeles. The first role of the Institute is to conduct research on weak and/or controversial epidemiologic relationships with the highest level of scientific integrity. The second role of the Institute is to publish epidemiologic findings in a detailed and transparent way and to vigorously defend the validity of these findings. Additional details about the Institute are currently being prepared. James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. 914 Westwood Boulevard #577 Los Angeles, CA 90024 president@scientificintegrityinstitute.org
3/11/07
- A Newsletter Reader
Anti-Smoking Group Attacks UCLA Researcher, Accusing Him of Scientific Misconduct; Trying to Make Him Fall Guy for Unfavorable Research Findings? 3/21/07 By Michael Siegel According to an article in a recent issue of Nature, the American Cancer Society (ACS) has accused UCLA professor and epidemiologist Dr. James Enstrom of scientific misconduct in his role in a 2003 British Medical Journal study which questioned the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer among nonsmokers. That article - which used data from the ACS Cancer Prevention Study and found no significant increase in lung cancer risk associated with exposure to spousal smoking - has received massive publicity, serving as the focal point for a campaign to eliminate tobacco industry funding of research at the University of California. According to the article, the accusation from the ACS has prompted an internal University investigation to determine whether any scientific misconduct occurred: "The latest round of debate began last autumn when the chief executive of the American Cancer Society, John Seffrin, wrote a letter to the University of California's board of regents arguing that tobacco funding should be banned. In the 12 October letter, Seffrin argued that tobacco-funded front groups "publicized misleading results" while giving "the false implication" that the society had endorsed the study. He cited Enstrom's BMJ article in particular, alleging that Enstrom "ignored" complaints of "fundamental methodological problems". ... Wyatt Hume, provost at the University of California's president's office, wrote to Seffrin saying that the university "takes allegations of scientific misconduct extremely seriously". If there is "specific information in support of an allegation of scientific misconduct against Enstrom", he wrote, he would relay it to officials at the Los Angeles campus so that they "can pursue the matter further". Shortly after, officials at the cancer society sent a seven-page list of what they cited as issues with the BMJ article. ... Officials at the Los Angeles campus "will conduct a thorough review of the documents" ... and "will take further steps to determine whether any research misconduct took place"."
Both authors of the study -- Dr. Enstrom and Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, formerly of SUNY Stony Brook, have vehemently denied any scientific misconduct:
"In an interview, Enstrom acknowledged receiving the various letters and corresponding with the University of California's authorities. "I am working on this with regents' approval," he said. "I am being allowed to defend myself by the appropriate people." He "absolutely" denies any misconduct in the study. And Kabat objects to the university's regent policies being based "on allegations motivated by a political agenda and unsupported by any facts"."
The Rest of the Story
According to the article, among the allegations that are part of the ACS complaint are the following: "top scientists at the cancer society say they repeatedly warned Enstrom of possible deficiencies in his analysis — particularly a 25-year gap in which exposure to second-hand smoke could not be verified. The society also says that when it gave Enstrom computerized records of study subjects, it was not aware that he was receiving funding from the tobacco industry. Later tobacco-related lawsuits revealed he had received money from industry funnelled through an organization called the Center for Indoor Air Research. And court records show Enstrom previously did consulting and research for attorneys defending the tobacco companies R. J. Reynolds and Philip Morris."
If these allegations are representative of the complaints in the ACS letter, then I don't see how this is anything more than a witch hunt to try to harass and vilify Drs. Enstrom and Kabat simply for having come to a conclusion that is unfavorable to the position of anti-smoking groups.
The presence of deficiencies in research is not scientific misconduct. Almost all research has some deficiencies. The inability to verify exposure of subjects at follow-up is not scientific misconduct, it is simply a limitation in the study methodology. This limitation could bias the results toward not finding an effect of secondhand smoke, but it is not misconduct to conduct a study that has methodologic limitations.
The failure to disclose one's other sources of funding to the ACS does not appear to me to be scientific misconduct. Unless Dr. Enstrom lied about having received tobacco industry funding (and I've seen no allegations of such), there is no misconduct. At the time he received funding, the ACS did not have a policy of refusing to fund anyone who has received tobacco money; thus, I don't immediately see why Dr. Enstrom would have had any obligation to disclose his previous funding sources. If the ACS failed to ask, then it's their problem.
Dr. Enstrom's previous work for the Center for Indoor Air Research and his consulting with attorneys representing tobacco companies are also not scientific misconduct. Failing to disclose his tobacco industry funding would be misconduct, but this funding was noted in a detailed disclosure in the paper. Since the conflict of interest was disclosed, I don't see what the basis is for a claim of scientific misconduct regarding the receipt of tobacco industry funding.
For the record, the article discloses the tobacco industry funding: "follow up through 1999 and data analysis were conducted at University of California at Los Angeles with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988-99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies."The article also discloses Dr. Enstrom and Kabat's work for tobacco companies: "In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research because it has been impossible for him to obtain equivalent funds from other sources. GCK never received funds originating from the tobacco industry until last year, when he conducted an epidemiological review for a law firm which has several tobacco companies as clients. He has served as a consultant to the University of California at Los Angeles for this paper. JEE and GCK have no other competing interests. They are both lifelong non-smokers whose primary interest is an accurate determination of the health effects of tobacco."It's clear that the American Cancer Society is unhappy with the results of the study and I can understand that. It's also clear that the ACS thinks the methodology of the study was severely flawed. And I can understand that as well. It's also clear that the ACS thinks that the tobacco industry used this study as part of its public relations campaign to undermine public health messages about the hazards of secondhand smoke. And I understand that as well. But where we part company is when the ACS attacks the individual investigators, questions their personal character and integrity, and accuses them of scientific misconduct. Based on my knowledge of the situation, this appears to me to basically be a witch hunt in which the ACS and others in the anti-smoking movement are taking out their displeasure at the publication of unfavorable results through an ad hominem attack against the dissenting voice. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? (Regular readers of The Rest of the Story will know what I am talking about). The appropriate manner in which to respond to the paper is through an analysis and critique of its scientific validity. The funding source is a valid consideration as well, as it could be seen as a potential source of bias. That's all fair game. But turning this into a personal attack and crossing over from scientific validity concerns to scientific misconduct is crossing the line. Questioning Dr. Enstrom's integrity as an individual is not appropriate in this situation. In fact, Dr. Enstrom is an individual and a scientist of the highest integrity. Those who are attacking him need to question their own integrity in turning to an ad hominem approach rather than sticking with a discussion of the scientific merits of the research. Of note, the American Cancer Society is perhaps not in the best position to be questioning the integrity of others. This is a group whose president called the tobacco companies terrorists. It is a group which stands together with Philip Morris in promoting legislation that would provide unprecedented special protections to the tobacco companies and would shield the companies from any significant threat of litigation. It is a group which has misled the public about the health effects of secondhand smoke and encouraged other anti-smoking groups to make what amount to fallacious statements in order to increase the emotional appeal of the secondhand smoke message. Before attacking others, perhaps the ACS should take a look at itself and get its own house in order. ReadAmerican Cancer Society Still Misrepresenting Scientific Evidence; Is it in a Position to Be Attacking Others for Scientific Misconduct? 3/21/07 By Michael Siegel Earlier today, I commented on the American Cancer Society's (ACS) attack upon UCLA professor and epidemiologist Dr. James Enstrom, in which the ACS accused him of scientific misconduct, prompting an internal investigation by the University. The ACS has also alleged that Dr. Enstrom communicated invalid conclusions regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke and misrepresented scientific evidence on the health effects of secondhand smoke. Read
|
