Coping with the Conflict-of-Interest Pandemic by Listening to and Doubting Everyone, Including Yourself

Tribes of Trust or Distrust, "Attitude Roots" and Encouraging Scientific Participation in the Tobacco Harm-Reduction Debate

Implications This commentary provides an analysis of non-scientific influences on the tobacco harm reduction debate. It makes use of the "attitude roots" model and the issue of misplace trust and distrust. Greater participation in the debate by experts is encouraged, along with efforts to minimize the effects of non-scientific, biasing effects on judgments.

What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature

There is no explicit consensus amongst population health researchers regarding what constitutes acceptable or effective interactions with the food industry. This has led to confusion and disagreements over conflicts of interest, which can undermine the integrity of science. To clarify this issue, we aimed to systematically identify the key principles developed by population health researchers to prevent or minimize conflicts of interest when interacting with the food industry. Databases of peer-reviewed literature were searched. In addition, an advanced Google search, a request to experts seeking related documents, and hand searching of references were undertaken. Thematic analysis of the extracted data was undertaken. We examined 54 eligible documents describing guidelines for population health researchers when interacting with the food industry. Fifty-six principles were identified and synthesized in five themes. There were high levels of agreement in themes relating to research governance, transparency, and publication but less agreement and guidance on how principles should be applied in relation to funding and risk assessment. There is agreement on some of the general principles for preventing and minimizing conflicts of interests for population health researchers when interacting with the food industry. However, for issues such as assessing the appropriateness of an industry partner, greater clarity and consensus are required.

Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest

Editors have increasing pressure as scholarly publishing tries to shore up trust and reassure academics and the public that traditional peer review is robust, fail-safe, and corrective. Hidden conflicts of interest (COIs) may skew the fairness of the publishing process because they could allow the status of personal or professional relationships to positively influence the outcome of peer review or reduce the processing period of this process. Not all authors have such privileged relationships. In academic journals, editors usually have very specialized skills and are selected as agents of trust, entrusted with the responsibility of serving as quality control gate-keepers during peer review. In many cases, editors form extensive networks, either with other professionals, industry, academic bodies, journals, or publishers. Such networks and relationships may influence their decisions or even their subjectivity towards a set of submitting authors, paper, or institute, ultimately influencing the peer review process. These positions and relationships are not simply aspects of a curriculum, they are potential COIs. Thus, on the editorial board of all academic journals, editors should carry a COI statement that reflects their past history, as well as actual relationships and positions that they have, as these may influence their editorial functions.

Obsolete tobacco control themes can be hazardous to public health: the need for updating views on absolute product risks and harm reduction

BACKGROUND

Leading themes have guided tobacco control efforts, and these themes have changed over the decades. When questions arose about health risks of tobacco, they focused on two key themes: 1) how bad is the problem (i.e., absolute risk) and 2) what can be done to reduce the risk without cessation (i.e., prospects for harm reduction). Using the United States since 1964 as an example, we outline the leading themes that have arisen in response to these two questions. Initially, there was the recognition that "cigarettes are hazardous to health" and an acceptance of safer alternative tobacco products (cigars, pipes, light/lower-tar cigarettes). In the 1980s there was the creation of the seminal theme that "Cigarettes are lethal when used as intended and kill more people than heroin, cocaine, alcohol, AIDS, fires, homicide, suicide, and automobile crashes combined." By around 2000, support for a less-dangerous light/lower tar cigarette was gone, and harm reduction claims were avoided for products like cigars and even for smokeless tobacco which were summarized as "unsafe" or "not a safe alternative to cigarettes."

DISCUSSION

The Surgeon General in 2014 concluded that by far the greatest danger to public health was from cigarettes and other combusted products. At the same time the evidence base for smokeless tobacco and alternative nicotine delivery systems (ANDS) had grown. Product innovation and tobacco/nicotine bio-behavioral, epidemiological and public health sciences demonstrate that low nitrosamine smokeless tobacco (e.g., Swedish snus), and ANDS have substantially lower harms than cigarettes. Going forward, it is important to sharpen themes and key messages of tobacco control, while continuing to emphasize the extreme lethality of the inhaled smoke from cigarettes or from use of any combusting tobacco product. Implications of updating the leading themes for regulation, policymaking and advocacy in tobacco control are proposed as an important next step. A new reframing can align action plans to more powerfully and rapidly achieve population-level benefit and minimize harm to eliminate in our lifetime the use of the most deadly combustible tobacco products and thus prevent the premature deaths of 1 billion people projected to occur worldwide by 2100.