3 ms·
And most of the research showing harmful effects of second-hand smoke has funding from either the American Cancer Society or similarly interested bodies. Indee
by 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 agoI 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.