|
|
General
Started by Anonymous at 09-14-2008 8:05 PM. Topic has 3 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 09-14-2008, 8:05 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
Smokeless Tobacco Studies
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that most of the studies I come across from a variety of credible sources, without a question of a doubt, conclude that smokeless tobacco is a known cause of oral cancer? Yet, every study that claims otherwise(which are very few and far between), almost without exception, has some sort of competing interests for their study. For example, financial contributions from tobacco companies. So my question is simple; why do you expect people to believe you and not them? Considering the various organizations/researchers/health professionals who conclude smokeless tobacco causes cancer (and other serious oral cavity problems) outnumber organizations like you by a very wide margin, it seems a little arrogant for you to simply put up a website and expect us just to take your word for it. Considering you get financial contributions from smokeless tobacco companies and make this "switch" suggestion, could even be consider by some an insult to their intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-29-2008, 8:25 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: Smokeless Tobacco Studies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the central issue here is the definition of competing interests. Almost everyone assumes that can only come from industry but it is no secret that more strings tend to be attached to government and activist funding. Quite often, only certain avenues of research are considered appropriate. Our funding for instance is in place with the proviso that there is no control over the direction of the research, or the publication of the results.
All funders have vested interests and that includes everyone from tobacco companies to the American Cancer Society. The real question is whether the research has been independent of the funding. We do not think that just because the ACS funds a study that it is suspect but it is naive to think that that source is not a competing interest.
Part of the reason you might see a pattern is if you only look at American studies where there has been an active discouragement of any research into tobacco harm reduction. Research tends to originate with the scientists and not the funders; so what generally happens is that someone finds something to research and then looks for ways to finance the research. In tobacco harm reduction, many of the usual sources of funding for public health research are unavailable so you have to work a little harder and find someone else who is wiling to give you some money to pursue your interests. For us, that someone else was a smokeless tobacco company.
However, if you look to Sweden, where most of the good research on smokeless tobacco comes from, you will find little of the same division of funders that you do here. Tobacco harm reduction, though still a matter of debate, is investigated as a scientific more than a political question. Here it remains a politically incorrect avenue of research.
The only reason we might seem out of step is the frame of reference. In North America we remain part of a very small voice against the crowd but widen the scope to the rest of the world and we are joined by Britain's Royal College of Physicians and a substantial research community in Sweden.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
09-29-2008, 3:04 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Smokeless Tobacco Studies
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if your research concluded what most other researchers hold to be true...smokeless causes oral cancer....would the funding continue? It just seems illogical, even a little absurd, for a smokeless tobacco company to fund a research organization who's message competes with their bottom line. Did you do any research before U.S. Tobacco got involved or was their funding necessary for the research even to be done? i feel it is almost impossible for reasonable, intelligent people not to question the motives of the funders, and quite frankly, the recipients in a relationship such as this. i know that may sound like an insult, but that isn't the case. 9 out of 10 would agree. Unfortunatley, that suspicion is exponetially made worse because the funder is a tobacco company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2008, 8:54 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: Smokeless Tobacco Studies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would the funding continue? The only way to know would be for us to determine that and see what happens. With the recent sale of USST to a company that makes cigarettes, our message that smokers should switch to using ST, while promoting one of their products is disparaging the other. We are an anti-smoking organization so we'll see how that plays out.
But you are right that funding from any organization with a stated purpose would be expected to funnelled toward research that supports that purpose. I would argue that tobacco funding is some of the cleanest funding around simply because of the level of scrutiny on their every move. And yes, intelligent people should consider the source, just not at the expense of the findings. If a tobacco company funded researcher found a cure for lung cancer, the methods and findings should be subjected to the same critical reviews all research gets, but the results should not be discounted on the grounds of where the money came from.
Speaking for myself, I came on board when this funding was already in place. Those before me were exploring this area before funding was in place but were limited to what could be done until the funding was in place.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|