CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 243Global Public Health Policies and EpidemiologySmoking Behavior and CessationPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms

Open access
Ong, Elisa K., Glantz, Stanton A.·2001·American Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.2105/ajph.91.11.1749PMC PMC1446868
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The tobacco industry has attacked “junk science” to discredit the evidence that secondhand smoke—among other environmental toxins—causes disease. Philip Morris used public relations firms and lawyers to develop a “sound science” program in the United States and Europe that involved recruiting other industries and issues to obscure the tobacco industry's role. The European “sound science” plans included a version of “good epidemiological practices” that would make it impossible to conclude that secondhand smoke—and thus other environmental toxins—caused diseases. Public health professionals need to be aware that the “sound science” movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.91.11.1749

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The tobacco industry has consistently used its resources and political connections to deny the health dangers of tobacco use and to undermine tobacco control policies nationally, regionally, and globally.

    “The tobacco industry has consistently used its resources and political connections to deny the health dangers of tobacco use and to undermine tobacco control policies nationally (Ong and Glantz 2001; Ling and Glantz 2002), regionally (Neuman, Bitton et al. 2002), and globally (World Health Organisation Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents 2000).”

    From Civil society and the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (2009) · cites this paper as Ong and Glantz 2001

  • FCA member organisations, such as ASH-Australia, sponsored government delegates from poor countries in the WHO Western Pacific Region to travel to Geneva to participate in the FCTC negotiations and helped some countries from the region formulate positions on the FCTC.

    “FCA member organisations, such as ASH-Australia, sponsored government delegates from poor countries in the WHO Western Pacific Region to travel to Geneva to participate in the FCTC negotiations and helped some countries from the region formulate positions on the FCTC30.”

    From Civil society and the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (2009) · cites this paper as [30]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. [1]Hollingsworth P. The “junk science” dilemma. Am Scientist. 2000; 88:2–4. [Google Scholar]
  2. [5]Price J, Rosenberg E. The war against junk science: the use of expert panels in complex medical-legal scientific litigation. Biomaterials. 1998;19: 1425–1432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [6]McCullough L. Two views on Europe's ban of US beef: beef ban based in social issues, not sound science. Wisconsin State Journal. July 18, 1999:2B
  4. [8]Crane M. Is “junk science” finally on the way out? Med Econ. 1996;73: 59–61, 65–66.. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [11]Coggon D, Cooper C. Fluoridation of water supplies: debate on the ethics must be informed by sound science. BMJ. 1999;319:269–270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. [12]Kizer K, Warriner T, Book S. Sound science in the implementation of public policy: a case report on California's Proposition 65. JAMA. 1988;260: 951–955. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. [13]Reinken J. Through the Smokescreen—A Critique of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: A Review of the Literature by the Tobacco Institute of New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Department of Health; 1990.
  8. [14]Bero L, Glantz S. Tobacco industry response to a risk assessment of environmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control. 1993;2:103–113. [Google Scholar]
  9. [16]Davey Smith G, Phillips A. Passive smoking and health: should we believe Philip Morris's “experts”? BMJ. 1996; 313:929–933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. [18]Samuels B, Glantz S. The politics of local tobacco control. JAMA. 1991; 266:2110–2117. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. [20]Traynor M, Begay M, Glantz S. New tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control. JAMA. 1993;270:479–486. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. [22]Glantz SA. The truth about big tobacco in its own words. BMJ. 2000; 321:313–314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. [38]Helvarg D. The big green spin machine: corporations and environmental PR (public relations). Amicus Journal; Summer 1996;18(2):13–21. [Google Scholar]
  14. [45]Levy R, Marimont R. Lies, damned lies, and 400,000 smoking-related deaths. Regulation. 1998;21:24–29. [Google Scholar]
  15. [47]Ong E, Glantz S. Tobacco industry efforts to subvert a secondhand smoke study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lancet. 2000;355: 1253–1259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. [48]Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. Multicenter case–control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1440–1450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. [55]Burson-Marsteller. Scientists for Sound Public Policy: assessment project and symposium. 1994. Document no. 2028363773/3791. Available at: http:// www.pmdocs.com. Accessed September 24, 2001.
  18. [56]Cook R. Overview of good epidemiologic practices. J Occup Med. 1991; 33:1216–1220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. [57]Chemical Manufacturers Association. Guidelines for good epidemiology practices for occupational and environmental epidemiologic research. 1991. Document no. 2024005575/5604. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Accessed September 4, 2001. [PubMed]
  20. [58]Chemical Manufacturers Association's Epidemiology Task Group. Guidelines for Good Epidemiology Practices for occupational and environmental epidemiologic research. J Occup Med. 1991;33:1221–1229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. [61]Borrelli T. GEP review. March 15, 1994. Document no. 2028446631B. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Accessed September 24, 2001.
  22. [62]Barnes D, Hanauer P, Slade J, Bero L, Glantz S. Environmental tobacco smoke. JAMA. 1995;274:248–253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. [63]Glantz S, Slade J, Bero L, Hanauer P, Barnes D. The Cigarette Papers. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1996.
  24. [65]Reif H. GEP review. March 17, 1994. Document no. 2028446631. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Accessed September 24, 2001.
  25. [74]Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency; 1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. [85]Walk R. EU GEP Conference. February 6, 1995. Document no. 2028381562. Available at: http:// www.pmdocs.com. Accessed September 24, 2001.
  27. [92]Ruder W. [Letter to PM stating American Health Foundation press kit by Ruder & Finn has no mention of smoking and health problem.] June 19, 1975. Document no. 2015013901. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Accessed September 24, 2001.
  28. [101]Jackson J. Activity in 1998 in the development of standards of good epidemiological practice. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1999;72:M81–M85. [Google Scholar]
  29. [104]Graham JD. The Role of Epidemiology in Regulatory Risk Assessment. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science; 1995.
  30. [105]Principles for Evaluating Epidemiologic Data in Regulatory Risk Assessment: Developed by an Expert Panel at a Conference in London, England, October 1995. Washington, DC: Federal Focus Inc; 1996.
  31. [113]Walk R. Proposed conference on “good risk management practices” in Asia 1998. August 1, 1997. Document no. 2063600682. Available at: http:// www.pmdocs.com. Accessed September 24, 2001.
  32. [117]Etzel R, Windham G, Soskolne C. International Society for Environmental Epidemiology 8th Annual Conference. 1996. Available at: http://www.iseepi.org/NOFRAMES/96rep.htm. Accessed June 21, 2000.
  33. [119]Zhang M. Press article in the China Daily on the CIAR's GEP workshop in Guangzhou. September 29, 1997. Document no. 2063608546. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Accessed September 24, 2001.
  34. [121]Barnes D, Bero L. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA. 1998;279:1566–1570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. [123]Office of Richard Carchman. International Workshop on Risk Assessment and Good Epidemiological Practices. July 14–17, 1997. Document no. 2063608584/8602. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Accessed September 24, 2001.
  36. [126]Du Y, Wu J. [Exploration of etiology of lung cancer and good epidemiological practices.] Chung-Hua Liu Hsing Ping Hsueh Tsa Chih. 1997;18:367– 371. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. [128]Du Y. [Risk assessment and good epidemiological practices.] Chung-Hua Liu Hsing Ping Hsueh Tsa Chih. 1997; 18:323–324. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. [134]Philip Morris Europe Science and Technology Neuchatel. ETS plan and budget for the years 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991. April 19, 1988. Document no. 2028364436. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Accessed September 24, 2001.
  39. [138]Taubes G. Epidemiology faces its limits. Science. 1995;269:164–169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. [139]Willett W, Greeland S, MacMahon B, et al. The discipline of epidemiology [letter]. Science. 1995;269:1325–1326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. [140]Trichopoulos D. The discipline of epidemiology [letter]. Science. 1995; 269:1326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. [142]King J, Yamey G. Why journals should not publish articles funded by the tobacco industry. BMJ. 2000;321: 1074–1076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. [147]Brundtland G. Achieving worldwide tobacco control. JAMA. 2000; 284:750–751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. [148]Marwick C. Court ruling on “junk science” gives judges more say about what expert witness testimony to allow [news]. JAMA. 1993;270:423. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. [149]Reichhardt T. Court affirms judges' right to reject “junk science” [news]. Nature. 1998;391:4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. [150]Prineas RJ, Goodman K, Soskolne CL, et al. Findings from the American College of Epidemiology's survey on ethics guidelines. Ann Epidemiol. 1998; 8:482–489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. [151]Rushton L. Reporting of occupational and environmental research: use and misuse of statistical and epidemiological methods. Occup Environ Med. 2000;57:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ong, E. K., & Glantz, S. A.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
ORCID
Glantz, Stanton A.
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Published
2001-11
Volume
91
Issue
11
Pages
1749-1757
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
DOI
10.2105/ajph.91.11.1749
PMC
PMC1446868
OpenAlex
W2001656080
Cited by
243
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA061021, R01CA087472, CA-61021, CA 87472)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
sound science, junk science, tobacco industry, Philip Morris, passive smoking, environmental toxins, public relations firms, lawyers, industry influence on science, scientific proof, public health advocacy
MeSH terms
Carcinogens, Europe, Financing, Organized, Humans, Public Policy, Public Relations, Research Support as Topic, Tobacco Smoke Pollution, United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Epidemiologic Studies, Conflict of Interest, Risk Assessment, Tobacco Industry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review