In tobacco control, “conflict of interest” has quietly undergone a semantic narrowing so severe that it now means almost one thing and one thing only: proximity to industry.
Excellent article! There's such a big difference between how tobacco control treats industry research vs., say, medical research being funded by pharma. Not saying there are no problems with that approach, either, but any industry that wants to comply with regulations must do their own science, and it's best for everyone if that science is made fully available with transparent disclosures.
Anecdote: several years back I was at a small local conference. One presenter was presenting their nutrition research and disclosed funding from a local meat producer association, but then said "I have no conflicts of interest." The presenter didn't get any push back on that, that I saw. Don't get me wrong, I'm about as pro-beef for nutrition as someone can be, but it was jarring to see them claim no COI. I guess my point with this anecdote is that I think there's a general amnesia about what COIs even are.
Your conference anecdote is perfect because it exposes the category error. Funding from a meat producer association is obviously a conflict of interest. Not a scandal, not a moral failing, just a competing incentive that readers and listeners should factor in. Saying “I have no conflicts of interest” in that context only works because we’ve quietly redefined COI to mean “funded by a bad industry,” not “has a stake in the outcome.”
That’s the amnesia you’re pointing to. Career dependence, ideological commitment, advocacy roles, and reputational investment. All of these are interests, and often far stronger ones than a single funding stream.
Bravo, well done, once again, the art of word smithing. Conflict of interest should go both ways. Even those who support a moral ideology have some form of conflict of interest, as Clive's comment points out. What should matter in the end is the real world's evidence, not ideology.
Really nice to see, Alan. You have received recognition with the "Nicotine Science and Policy" newsletter. Demonstrating just how well respected your blogs are. (happy icon). Well done.
Another brilliant piece, Alan... very well stated. It reminds me of Upton Sinclair:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Excellent article! There's such a big difference between how tobacco control treats industry research vs., say, medical research being funded by pharma. Not saying there are no problems with that approach, either, but any industry that wants to comply with regulations must do their own science, and it's best for everyone if that science is made fully available with transparent disclosures.
Anecdote: several years back I was at a small local conference. One presenter was presenting their nutrition research and disclosed funding from a local meat producer association, but then said "I have no conflicts of interest." The presenter didn't get any push back on that, that I saw. Don't get me wrong, I'm about as pro-beef for nutrition as someone can be, but it was jarring to see them claim no COI. I guess my point with this anecdote is that I think there's a general amnesia about what COIs even are.
Your conference anecdote is perfect because it exposes the category error. Funding from a meat producer association is obviously a conflict of interest. Not a scandal, not a moral failing, just a competing incentive that readers and listeners should factor in. Saying “I have no conflicts of interest” in that context only works because we’ve quietly redefined COI to mean “funded by a bad industry,” not “has a stake in the outcome.”
That’s the amnesia you’re pointing to. Career dependence, ideological commitment, advocacy roles, and reputational investment. All of these are interests, and often far stronger ones than a single funding stream.
Bravo, well done, once again, the art of word smithing. Conflict of interest should go both ways. Even those who support a moral ideology have some form of conflict of interest, as Clive's comment points out. What should matter in the end is the real world's evidence, not ideology.
Really nice to see, Alan. You have received recognition with the "Nicotine Science and Policy" newsletter. Demonstrating just how well respected your blogs are. (happy icon). Well done.