3 ms·

Digging a bit more, it seems that this editorial isn't nearly the whole story. The professor's main area of interest appears to be in studies showing that part

Digging a bit more, it seems that this editorial isn't nearly the whole story. The professor's main area of interest appears to be in studies showing that particulate matter in secondhand smoke isn't at all harmful.[1] Completely coincidentally, I'm sure, he has also taken significant payments from Phillip Morris and other tobacco corporate interests. [1]: His own website, which is dedicated to defending his research on secondhand smoke: http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/ http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
narrator 16y ago
"Completely coincidentally, I'm sure, he has also taken significant payments from Phillip Morris and other tobacco corporate interests." Did you just make that up, or do you have information to backup that claim?
- bbatsell 16y ago
  It's discussed in nearly every article about his research. He also (obliquely) commented on taking funding from dubious sources on SourceWatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom_in_his_own_words http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom_...
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Is it possible that smoking is bad for you, yet it most of the time doesn't cause cancer and that second-hand smoke risks are highly overrated? Also, if whenever you take money from an outside source, the research is discredited, shouldn't we just stop taking any money from outside interest groups? It seems really silly to spend money researching X, if when you publish everybody comes out and says your research doesn't count because it was paid for by interest groups. And now it seems this is even enough to discredit the researcher himself. I say that because it seems almost like an article of faith that smoking always causes cancer or that anything to do with smoking must be bad -- even being close to somebody that smokes. On the face of it, that seems a bit much. Or, put another way, it seems like popular opinion has gotten way ahead of reasonable discussion when it comes to smoking. I drive through the city and see these huge multi-million-dollar office buildings. There's guys out back wearing thousand dollar suits, smoking cigarettes, in the rain, huddling next to the dumpster. Just seems like we've overreacted a bit. (Admittedly a gut feeling. And no, I am not a smoker and I do not like to be around people who do smoke, but that's a different topic)
- bbatsell 16y ago
  For the record, I was in no way attempting to discredit this particular researcher (I'd be talking way above my level of knowledge in so attempting); I was just saying that the editorial seemed to be missing relevant information that seems like it might be significant for his colleagues and superiors.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    No problem. I think this story is very interesting. Just wish we had a better source to use for the discussion.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Interesting - so you think he is being fired for doing politically incorrect research rather than for exposing his colleagues as frauds?
jimwise 16y ago
And most of the research showing harmful effects of second-hand smoke has funding from either the American Cancer Society or similarly interested bodies. Indeed, the whole question of second-hand smoke is sort of microcosm of what's wrong with science today. We have two large biased bodies of research, almost no reproducible conclusions or event truly independent analyses, and a popular wisdom which treats the question as `settled' based on which set of conclusions is more in line with the political mood of the times. I don't know this professor or his work, and I don't have a dog in this fight -- but I don't see why a grant from Phillip Morris would be any more or less suspect than a grant from the American Cancer Society; both are large organizations which depend for a lot of their livelihood on one possible outcome of such research.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  I don't see why a grant from Phillip Morris would be any more or less suspect than a grant from the American Cancer Society Doesn't Altria have a long history of pushing fake science about the health effects of smoking on smokers that directly contradicted its own internal research? The American Cancer Society has no equivalent scandals in its history. The fact that Altria spent many years actively lying to the public about the health effects of a dangerous and highly addictive drug it was selling seems relevant in assessing its credibility. both are large organizations which depend for a lot of their livelihood on one possible outcome of such research This comparison seems...not right. If we invented an absolute 100% cure for lung cancer tomorrow that cost almost nothing, the American Cancer Society would still have plenty of funding. There are a great many cancers that have nothing to do with cigarette smoking.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

narrator 16y ago

"Completely coincidentally, I'm sure, he has also taken significant payments from Phillip Morris and other tobacco corporate interests." Did you just make that up, or do you have information to backup that claim?

bbatsell 16y ago
It's discussed in nearly every article about his research. He also (obliquely) commented on taking funding from dubious sources on SourceWatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom_in_his_own_words http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom_...

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Is it possible that smoking is bad for you, yet it most of the time doesn't cause cancer and that second-hand smoke risks are highly overrated? Also, if whenever you take money from an outside source, the research is discredited, shouldn't we just stop taking any money from outside interest groups? It seems really silly to spend money researching X, if when you publish everybody comes out and says your research doesn't count because it was paid for by interest groups. And now it seems this is even enough to discredit the researcher himself. I say that because it seems almost like an article of faith that smoking always causes cancer or that anything to do with smoking must be bad -- even being close to somebody that smokes. On the face of it, that seems a bit much. Or, put another way, it seems like popular opinion has gotten way ahead of reasonable discussion when it comes to smoking. I drive through the city and see these huge multi-million-dollar office buildings. There's guys out back wearing thousand dollar suits, smoking cigarettes, in the rain, huddling next to the dumpster. Just seems like we've overreacted a bit. (Admittedly a gut feeling. And no, I am not a smoker and I do not like to be around people who do smoke, but that's a different topic)

bbatsell 16y ago
For the record, I was in no way attempting to discredit this particular researcher (I'd be talking way above my level of knowledge in so attempting); I was just saying that the editorial seemed to be missing relevant information that seems like it might be significant for his colleagues and superiors.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  No problem. I think this story is very interesting. Just wish we had a better source to use for the discussion.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Interesting - so you think he is being fired for doing politically incorrect research rather than for exposing his colleagues as frauds?

jimwise 16y ago

And most of the research showing harmful effects of second-hand smoke has funding from either the American Cancer Society or similarly interested bodies. Indeed, the whole question of second-hand smoke is sort of microcosm of what's wrong with science today. We have two large biased bodies of research, almost no reproducible conclusions or event truly independent analyses, and a popular wisdom which treats the question as `settled' based on which set of conclusions is more in line with the political mood of the times. I don't know this professor or his work, and I don't have a dog in this fight -- but I don't see why a grant from Phillip Morris would be any more or less suspect than a grant from the American Cancer Society; both are large organizations which depend for a lot of their livelihood on one possible outcome of such research.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
I don't see why a grant from Phillip Morris would be any more or less suspect than a grant from the American Cancer Society Doesn't Altria have a long history of pushing fake science about the health effects of smoking on smokers that directly contradicted its own internal research? The American Cancer Society has no equivalent scandals in its history. The fact that Altria spent many years actively lying to the public about the health effects of a dangerous and highly addictive drug it was selling seems relevant in assessing its credibility. both are large organizations which depend for a lot of their livelihood on one possible outcome of such research This comparison seems...not right. If we invented an absolute 100% cure for lung cancer tomorrow that cost almost nothing, the American Cancer Society would still have plenty of funding. There are a great many cancers that have nothing to do with cigarette smoking.