Letter from Gerry Akland, Ph.D. (Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina) January 04, 2001 Dear Ms. White and Mr. Weissman: Thank you for your thoughtful letter related to my involvement with extramural review of the science projects associated with funding provided by Philip Morris. I applaud your efforts to discourage the global use of tobacco products, especially by children. However I feel that your efforts directed towards individuals conducting research which are studying the mechanisms of exposure and disease associated not only with tobacco use, but to other sources and activities associated with environmental exposure, are misplaced. Funding of science includes both public and private sector sponsorship. In some cases efforts (and research organizations) are supported from a combination of both forms of funding, as for example, the Health Effects Institute. There are many examples where the research has been supported by clients who have an interest in the result, yet the resulting research has been accepted by the scientific community. How is this possible, you might ask? It is through the mechanism of credible scientific review of the research, from the start (study design), though the implementation (including external quality assurance), to the results including publication in the peer reviewed literature. I have chosen to highlight the words "credible scientific review" to emphasize the point that it is this process which allows for the results to be interpretable, defensible, and usable by the scientific community without regard to who pays for it. My professional association with any organization or journal, is in support of this process. I am quite aware of the scientific review process set in place by Drs. Eisenberg and Channing. Projects are reviewed to ensure that they meet scientific standards and the projects are relevant, scientific issues. Furthermore, there is an agreement with the P.I.'s that their research results will be published without censorship from the funding source. I am aware of some of the results that have been published as a result of the CIAR sponsored research which does document effects of tobacco exposures both on children as well as the general public. This research has been cited by EPA in developing its ETS risk assessment as well as in its PM criteria document. Such examples seem to contradict your concerns related to sponsorship of research. My interest in continuing to assist in the advancement of science is that public policy based on good science will survive the many attacks by those who may have a more partisan interest. I would rather work on this side of the process, rather the one of public opinion which may change with a new administration or by taking on a "rider" to some unrelated piece of legislation. So long as the journals and organizations adhere to a common code of ethics which permit independent research and publishing only the results of research which adheres to the principles of good science, I will continue to participate. And a last thought seems in order. If one were to follow your course of action to some conclusion, it would seem that you might be supporting the notion that Philip Morris should fund research that is neither reviewed prior to funding nor subsequently. This type of "junk science" is the very scum that the scientific process seeks to eliminate. I also share your interest in promoting public health worldwide, and I suggest that my contribution through the scientific process, is also of societal value. Sincerely, |