Tobacco.org

• Did Big Tobacco Taint a Cancer Study?  

according to Dr. Antonio Gotto, dean of Weill Cornell, the idea for the Foundation originated at a meeting some time in the late 1990s in which Henschke, representatives from the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, as well as anti-smoking activists were present. At the time, there was no national or international lung cancer screening effort in place, and the group decided that such a program was needed, and that tobacco companies should contribute funding to support the project. Liggett was the first to agree, and, to Gotto's understanding, the company promised to convince other cigarette makers to donate as well. "We made a public announcement along with Liggett that they were making a gift to Weill Cornell to support this activity," says Gotto, who was not involved in the study. "We made no effort to cover up the fact that the money was coming from Liggett. It is patently false that we set up the Foundation to cover up the fact that we were getting tobacco money." . . .

the fact that a cigarette manufacturer was even remotely involved taints the findings and leaves the results open to question. Fortunately, in this case, that question may be answered in a few years. A comprehensive, multi-year trial looking at the ability of CT screening to prevent lung cancer deaths is currently underway, with results expected in 2010. Rather than estimating data to calculate a death rate, that trial -- funded by the National Cancer Institute, part of the federal government's National Institutes of Health -- will record actual deaths from lung cancer in two groups of subjects, those who are screened and those who are not.

If anything, this incident exposes the extent to which the medical field still relies on the integrity of its members to maintain patient confidence. But as economic and other interests continue to seep into the doctor's office, that may have to change. It may no longer be enough for journals to ask researchers to disclose potential conflicts of interest, for example; now editors may have to begin asking for records detailing how a study was funded. In the end, that may be just as important as analyzing the study itself.

Jump to full article »