Last week I grabbed a copy of the New York Times and found a front page article with this headline: “Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study.†The story, and its front page placement in a publication that is generally considered America’s newspaper of record, is a perfect example of the double standard and bias of the news and science of smoking.
Here’s the short version of the article (which can be read in its entirety here): A study finds that lung cancer can be significantly reduced through early CT scans but, since the study was funded indirectly by a cigarette company, its results may be tainted.
Why a study funded in part by tobacco companies automatically taints the results is not exactly clear. Instead of criticizing the methodology of the study or suggesting that the results are not scientifically supported, critics let loose a series of ad hominem attacks.
In one particularly nasty attack, an activist with the American Cancer Society is quoted as saying, “If you’re using blood money, you need to tell people you’re using blood money.” The article also states that “cigarette makers are so reviled among cancer advocates and researchers that any association with the industry can taint researchers and bar their work from being published.”
Other than nasty ad hominem attacks and noting that “any association” with tobacco companies can forever taint a scientist’s research, however, the article is short on reasons why tobacco-funded studies are less scientific or less legitimate. The only attempt at an explanation is this mealy-mouthed sentence: “Corporate financing can have subtle effects on research and lead to unconscious bias. Studies have shown that sponsored research tends to reach conclusions that favor the sponsor…”
Which brings me to the anti-smoking bias: There is a clear double-standard when it comes to assuming that tobacco company-funded research is automatically biased and illegitimate, while research done or funded by government and anti-smoking activists are assumed to be noble and on the up-and-up.
As the article admits, so-called “cancer advocates and researchers” so viciously hate tobacco companies that any association with one is grounds for expulsion from the scientific discussion. What could be more biased than that?
And yet the research produced by these same scientists and activists is used to justify smoking bans, tobacco taxes, increased tobacco regulations, and other anti-smoking laws. Why is it not considered biased when a group of scientists who hate an entire industry always seem to come up with research that supports restricting that industry’s product?
Further, funding for anti-tobacco organizations like the American Cancer Society and other groups comes from two sources: government agencies and individual and foundation donations. (Additionally, some groups like the ACS are considered by many to be in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry.) To suggest that these funding sources are any less prejudiced would be a dubious assertion.
People and foundations that fund anti-smoking groups and researchers know that the studies being conducted are looking for reasons to ban and regulate tobacco, and they support that goal. Meanwhile, government bureaucrats have power to gain if they can further tax and regulate tobacco, not to mention jobs to loose if the research they fund or conduct doesn’t support more regulations or conducting further anti-smoking studies.
Ultimately, there is always going to be some bias on science when it is funded by people with an agenda, and my purpose here isn’t to defend the tobacco industry who surely has its share of faults. But hyper-sensitivity to the influence of tobacco companies is leading to a blindness of the pervasive anti-smoking bias that undoubtedly affects the research and conclusions of what can fairly be called the anti-smoking industry.
Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the front page story in the New York Times about that bias.
–Patrick S
photo credit: Wikimedia
2) A tobacco festival in the Philippines ended this week with the parade of a 
As the name suggests, this blend is Honduran through and through. It boasts sungrown binder and filler tobaccos and a dark, granulated Havana-seed wrapper from the San Agustin Valley. You’ll notice some sizable seams and a few large veins but, all in all, this stick is pretty easy on the eyes.
According to Altadis’ 
Now, when I take possession of five exorbitantly pricey cigars, I leave nothing to chance. I go to great lengths to maintain them, and eventually to enjoy them at what I anticipate to be their peak condition. Such was the case for this review. When I finally pulled my Graycliffs out of the humidor, they’d been resting for about six months and were coated with a layer of fine, white plume.
Patrick Ashby
Co-Founder & Editor in Chief
Patrick Semmens
Co-Founder & Publisher
George Edmonson
Tampa Bureau Chief