Conflict of interest..............about time

[Mossy]

I saw this buried in the UK Vapers report................seems the journal of Nicotine and tobacco control are waking up....finally.

http://m.ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/02/11/ntr.ntw031.full.pdf

 

[Marc411]

Interesting read, thanks for posting.

And they start with a bang

The potential impact of conflicts of interest on science has been discussed extensively – vested interests can shape the behaviour of scientists, both consciously and unconsciously, thereby distorting the scientific record.

Seems like the UK is way ahead of the States when it comes to balanced discussion on vaping.

Here's the PDF for anyone interested

 

[Cool_Breeze]

That's interesting. The replication studies could prove useful. It's not clear to me how the replication studies are to be funded.

 

[pennysmalls]

Great find, here's another good quote.

However, there is also a third source of conflicts of interest, which receives much less attention – the beliefs, preconceptions and pet theories of individual scientists (3). Tackling conflicts of interest is notoriously complex – while financial interests are typically easy to identify, unconscious biases may not even be known those affected by them.

 

[sofarsogood]

I saw this buried in the UK Vapers report................seems the journal of Nicotine and tobacco control are waking up....finally.

http://m.ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/02/11/ntr.ntw031.full.pdf

Well they missed the 800 pound gorilla, the conflict of interest of governments and government supported institutions. I would exclude everyone whose funding would likely be reduced, if tobacco taxes disappeared, from passing judgement on ecigs because cigarette taxes are such an important part of total tax collections. If governments forever abolished excise taxes on tobacco, then, and only then, would I possibly, may be, listen to their views on ecigs. In my calculation of honor honesty and integrity of public officials they need to shut up and .... out.

 

[DC2]

Tackling conflicts of interest is notoriously complex – while financial interests are typically easy to identify, unconscious biases may not even be known those affected by them.

A true scientist would work harder than anything to recognize and address their own biases.
These types of concerns should be fully addressed in the write-up of the study.

I guess what I learned in college about "how science is really supposed to work" was just for fun.
It seems too many "scientists" don't really care about any of that mumbo jumbo.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Even better news about alleged conflicts of interest.

Letter by Kosmoder & Anastasi refutes data claims, debunks “conflict of interest” accusation of Pisinger & Dossing on industry sponsored vapor product research;

Ideology versus evidence: Investigating the claim that the literature on e-cigarettes is undermined by material conflict of interest
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743516000700

 

[Endor]

Well they missed the 800 pound gorilla, the conflict of interest of governments and government supported institutions. I would exclude everyone whose funding would likely be reduced, if tobacco taxes disappeared, from passing judgement on ecigs because cigarette taxes are such an important part of total tax collections. If governments forever abolished excise taxes on tobacco, then, and only then, would I possibly, may be, listen to their views on ecigs. In my calculation of honor honesty and integrity of public officials they need to shut up and .... out.

Speaking of that, note the first footnote reference. It is shocking to see Glantz and "sound science" in the same sentence:

1. Ong EK, Glantz SA. Constructing "sound science" and "good epidemiology":
tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91(11):1749-
57

 

[sofarsogood]

Speaking of that, note the first footnote reference. It is shocking to see Glantz and "sound science" in the same sentence:

1. Ong EK, Glantz SA. Constructing "sound science" and "good epidemiology":
tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91(11):1749-
57

I think there must be a hallowed tradition in "public health" that it's okay to lie if that's what it takes to change behavior in the desired way. They are such petty and nasty people. It takes my breath away. They like to play the conflict of interest card talking about the science but they cannot acknowledge the conflict created by being tax supported and knowing their funding declines or disappears if everybody stops smoking. What would be the size and stature of the American Lung Association if nobody was smoking. Who would fund them, and to do what? Dr. F is not dependent on the NIH for money. We find him more credible. Tenured professors can speak their minds unless they too are on the government dole to keep labs open. The ecig debate is turning science into a joke. That's too bad.