Tobacco.org

• ENSTROM: Defending legitimate epidemiologic research: combating Lysenko (PDF) 

The instantaneous attack on our paper appears to have been a coordinated effort, primarily organized by the ACS and Glantz. Glantz is a well-known anti-smoking activist who has worked closely with the ACS for many years [10]. As part of this coordinated effort, Glantz organized a May 15, 2003 Miami, Florida press conference involving a panel of "international experts" in order to "debunk" our "Marry a Smoker, Get Less Cancer" study before the press embargo ended [11]. At the time of the ACS press release and the Miami press conference, neither the ACS, Glantz, or the other Miami "experts" had access to the full ten-page version of our paper, let alone time to read it and carefully analyze it. The full version of our paper was not posted on the BMJ website ("www.bmj.com") until the press embargo lifted at 7:01 PM EDT on May 15, 2003 [1]. The only version available when the embargoed BMJ press release was issued on May 13, 2003 was the abridged five-page paper that appears in the print version of the BMJ [12]. Obviously, these critics chose to hastily write a press release and hold a press conference based on limited information. They did not have the integrity or objectivity to read our full ten-page paper or to contact the authors before beginning their attack, which included erroneous claims about the paper's content and quality. . . .

On March 8, 2005 Glantz participated with other UC faculty members in a San Francisco based• KQED radio program entitled "Funders and Academic Research: Forum assesses the• controversy surrounding the relationship between funders and academic research," which can be• listened to on the Internet and audio files [61]. During this program Glantz attempted to• discredit well qualified scientists and their peer-reviewed research publications by• inappropriately linking them to the tobacco industry. The "scandal" about me and my BMJ study• was discussed during minutes 17-19 of this 52 minute program, when Glantz made several• clearly false and inflammatory statements. First, Glantz claimed that the BMJ study "was not• funded by the American Cancer Society," but was "done with Philip Morris' money." Actually,• the study was funded by ACS from 1959 to 1990, by the UC Tobacco-Related Disease Research• Program from 1991 to 1997, and by the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) from 1998 to• 2003. Philip Morris provided no direct funding for this study and had no role in its conduct. • Then, Glantz stated that I was "a damn fool" who was told by ACS that I "made inappropriate• use of the data", an unsubstantiated claim made only after Glantz and ACS learned of my results. • Then, Glantz implied that I was "advocating a pro-tobacco position" when I have never done. • Finally, Glantz claimed "the science that the UCLA study did was crap", whereas it clearly• conformed to the standards of epidemiologic research. These statements indicate the• unprofessional approach used by Glantz to attack scientific findings with which he disagrees and• to advocate positions that are not supported by the facts.• . . .

Glantz cited my• BMJ study as one rationale for such a ban in written documents [65] and in a January 18, 2007• presentation before the UC Regents [66]. The UC Regents requested advice on this issue from• the UC Academic Senate, which spent several months carefully evaluating the matter [67]. My• perspective, including a defense of my research, my funding, and my scientific integrity, was• presented to the UC Academic Senate in April 2007 [68]. In May 2007 representatives of the• UC Academic Senate voted almost unanimously (15 to 1 by the Academic Council and 44 to 5 by the Academic Assembly) in favor in academic freedom and against a proposed ban on• tobacco industry funding advocated by Glantz [69-71].• . . .

The attack described above was quite startling to me as someone whose honesty and scientific integrity had never been questioned during the 33-year period from July 1970, when I received my Ph.D., until May 2003. . . .

Although I have refuted the erroneous statements in their May 15, 2003 press release, the ACS has shown no interest in correcting the record with regard to me and my research. Their press release has been posted on up to 1,000 locations on the Internet during the past four years, based on Google searches of the phrase "American Cancer Society Condemns Tobacco Industry Study." It is still posted on many websites in addition to ACS's own website. Our BMJ and Lancet letters and our new meta-analysis defending the validity of our BMJ paper are being ignored by the ACS. . . . One particularly pernicious aspect of the attack described above is the fact that my BMJ paper is now part of the largest ($280 billion) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit ever filed, United States of America v. Philip Morris USA, et al. [Civil Action No. 99-CV-02496(GK)] [94,95]. My research and I are described in a defamatory way on pages 821-830 within the section "Defendants Used Their Jointly Controlled Organizations to Promote Their Agenda Through Symposia, Publications and a Roster of Long-time Paid Scientists" of the 2543-page pretrial "UNITED STATES' FINAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (July 2004)" prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) [96]. The trial took place in front of U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler from September 2004 though June 2005 [94]. Additionally, my research and I are described in a defamatory way in several places in the 2454page post-trial document "UNITED STATES' FINAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (Incorporating Errata of August 16, 2005)" prepared by the USDOJ [97]. Specifically, my BMJ paper is listed on page vii of the Table of Contents under the category "Cooking the Books: The Manufacture of False Science to Support the Industry Position on ETS." On page 493 it is included among "examples of scientific fraud" and on page 589 it is described as "at best a contamination of the scientific literature and at worst a scientific fraud." It is discussed in detail on pages 609-615, where there are numerous false statements and distortions, such as, "the Enstrom/Kabat study is yet another self-serving, unreliable, and scientifically questionable product of the industry's unabated effort to attack the scientific consensus on passive smoking." Although no actual evidence was presented of errors in my study or of scientific misconduct on my part, the lawsuit makes it appear that I have engaged in scientific fraud. The available evidence indicates that insertion of the BMJ paper was a collaborative effort of Glantz and Sharon Y. Eubanks (D.C. Bar No. 420147), Director of the USDOJ Tobacco Litigation Team from 1999 until December 2005, when she resigned from the USDOJ [98]. The following brief in Civil No. 99-CV-02496 (GK), "REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES' THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BY BROWN & WILLIAMSON BASED ON ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OR PROTECTION," was prepared by Eubanks and signed on December 5, 2003. This brief is posted on the same listserv that Glantz has used to post other defamatory information about me [99]. Pages 8, 9, and 14 of this brief contain a misleading and distorted presentation of my alleged "ties" with the tobacco industry going back "nearly 30 years." This presentation later appeared in the July 2004 and August 2005 Findings of Fact of the USDOJ lawsuit. This 2003 brief does not present any evidence challenging my honesty as a scientist or the validity of the findings in my BMJ paper. It is simply an attempt to smear my reputation with inappropriately constructed "ties" to the tobacco industry, based on the fact that I had correspondence with the tobacco industry regarding my epidemiologic research. . . .

the Judge identified no specific errors in the study and identified no scientific misconduct by me. At no time was I ever given an opportunity to challenge or refute the statements made about me and my research in the USDOJ Findings of Fact, in the trial itself, or in the Kessler opinion. I am now in the process of clearing my name in connection with this lawsuit and this paper represents a major step in that process. . . .

On page 1234 she states: "The Court accepts and credits Dr. Samet's conclusions, based on his expertise, as well as the other factual findings herein, that exposure to secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease in adults and a number of respiratory diseases in children." It is worth repeating the allegations in the Kessler decision, first to point out that they are the same false and misleading claims about the Enstrom/Kabat study by the ACS, Samet, Glantz, and others that are described above, and second to show how obviously incorrect they are. The Enstrom/Kabat study was not "CIAR-funded and managed" and was not "funded and managed by the tobacco industry through CIAR and Philip Morris." Although the study was partially funded by CIAR, it was not managed by either CIAR or Philip Morris. Indeed, CIAR assigned its entire award for the study to UCLA in 1999 just before CIAR was dissolved as a condition of the Master Settlement Agreement [105]. CIAR did not even exist when my study was being completed. The study was conducted and published without any influence from the tobacco industry. . . .

Based on the record presented above, Eubanks has obviously dealt extensively with both Glantz and Samet regarding the issue of my BMJ paper and the USDOJ lawsuit. She injected herself directly into the UC tobacco industry funding ban issue with a lecture before the Regents on July 18, 2007, when she described the USDOJ lawsuit and its connection to UC [110]. She claimed that Judge Kessler was "a neutral fact finder, a federal judge, who made her findings of conspiratorial conduct objectively" based on "a full and fair record." However, she knows that the record is not objective and that I was never given any opportunity to defend myself and my BMJ paper during the trial. In an eloquent defense of academic freedom at UC, the 2006-2007 UC Academic Senate Chair John B. Oakley challenged Eubank's linkage of the USDOJ lawsuit to UC and raised the issue of whether Judge Kessler's opinion would ultimately be upheld upon appeal . . .

In order to explain the phenomenon that has made this defense of my epidemiologic research necessary, Geoffrey Kabat, Sheldon Ungar, and I presented a symposium entitled "Reassessment of the Long-term Mortality Risks of Active and Passive Smoking" at the 2nd North American Congress of Epidemiology in Seattle, Washington on June 24, 2006 [127]. We described major misrepresentations that are currently occurring with regard to the epidemiology of both active and passive smoking, as well as the silencing of science associated with this area of epidemiology. . . .

concluded our Symposium by drawing an analogy between the current situation involving ETS epidemiology in the United States and the historical situation involving agronomist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and plant genetics in the Soviet Union during the period of 1927-1962 . . .

Funding of this paper is the same as that of reference 39. The content of this paper is based on the knowledge I have acquired during my entire epidemiologic career, during which I have had many funding sources. My competing interests are fully discussed in the text of this paper and in reference 1 and are known worldwide thanks largely to the efforts of Glantz, Thun, and Samet. My personal stake in the matters discussed here should be self-evident. In order to address concerns about my competing interests, this paper is entirely transparent and its contents can be verified with the references cited.

References

1.

Enstrom JE, Kabat GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians during 1960-98. BMJ 2003;326:1057 [http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/BMJ051703.pdf] [http://bmj.com/cgi/reprint/326/7398/1057.pdf]. . . .

Enstrom JE, Kabat GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease mortality in the United States – a meta-analysis and critique. Inhalation Toxicology 2006;18:199210

[http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/IT030106.pdf] [http://www.journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/link.asp?id=tu644n1t32650134].

Jump to full article »