For the sake of public health, end virtue signalling about THR funding
I arrived into the world of tobacco harm reduction (THR) from drugs and HIV harm reduction in 2015. I was invited into KAC by two valued colleagues from my previous world who were perfectly up front (and have never hidden the fact) that the funding for the organisation came from the Foundation for a Smoke Free World which in turn was funded by Philip Morris International. And the reason that they were prepared to use this money to further the cause of THR was that no other prospective funders for a harm reduction project were interested. Nobody back in the day was excited by the fact that if you could separate nicotine use from combustion the relative risk was massively reduced and the potential health gains enormous.
Obviously, we were all aware of the egregious reputation of ‘Big Tobacco’ in trying to con the scientific community and the public about the dangers of smoking – no, it didn’t cause cancer, no, smoking wasn’t addictive, no, companies didn’t target young people. But this was flying in the face of overwhelming scientific and clinical evidence.
So, when the industry became involved in manufacturing safer nicotine products, it was understandable that there was widespread scepticism that this was just more Big Tobacco smoke and mirrors – in this case to hook young people on new products to compensate for falling sales of cigarettes. Moreover, went the claims, these products were as dangerous or even more dangerous than smoking and didn’t help people quit smoking. Except this flew in the face of overwhelming (and still growing) independent scientific and clinical evidence.
I emphasise the word ‘independent’ because from whatever source THR researchers receive funding for their work, it is based on standard methodologies which are subject to independent peer review scrutiny. From personal experience, I can say that in all the years I have been the lead writer for KAC, there has never been even the most subtle hint of interference from the funder as to what I can or cannot write. Nor is there any evidence that others in receipt of industry funding have been subjected to similar pressures.
But that isn’t enough for those hell-bent on faux moral outrage, virtue signalling and pernicious groupthink. Simply working in the field of THR has academics, students, health professionals and activists branded as stooges of the industry, helping to promote its products. Those who are industry funded or have even the most tangential and historic links with industry have papers refused and are banned from conference speaking or even attendance while young professionals are warned by superiors against attending any event where industry might be represented. This leaves individuals, dedicated to help reducing death and disease from smoking, in a highly vulnerable state, fearful of peer criticism, for future funding and even for their careers. This is especially perilous in countries whose officials are generally hostile to any sort of harm reduction interventions and so whose ears are easily bent by THR opponents.
We live in a world now which has gone way beyond the idea of individuals and organisations being ‘economical with the truth’. As AI makes its existential mark on our global communications, it is becoming increasingly hard to discern fact from fiction. This makes it even more important that so long as the evidence presented passes scrutiny, THR research is given due weight irrespective of the funding source. It is totally unacceptable for those working in THR to be smeared and insulted by individuals and organisations more interested in soundbites and foghorn politics than doing good in the world.