Document analysis of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World's scientific outputs and activities: a case study in contemporary tobacco industry agnogenesis.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco corporation Philip Morris International launched the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), a purportedly independent scientific organisation, in 2017. We aimed to systematically investigate FSFW's activities and outputs, comparing these with previous industry attempts to influence science, as identified in the recently developed typology of corporate influence on science, the Science for Profit Model (SPM). DESIGN: We prospectively collected data on FSFW over a 4-year period, 2017-2021, and used document analysis to assess whether FSFW's activities mirror practices tobacco and other industries have historically used to shape science in their own interests. We used the SPM as an analytical framework, working deductively to search for use of the strategies it identifies, and inductively to search for any additional strategies. RESULTS: Marked similarities between FSFW's practices and previous corporate attempts to influence science were observed, including: producing tobacco industry-friendly research and opinion; obscuring industry involvement in science; funding third parties which denigrate science and scientists that may threaten industry profitability; and promoting tobacco industry credibility. CONCLUSIONS: Our paper identifies FSFW as a new vehicle for agnogenesis, indicating that, over 70 years since the tobacco industry began to manipulate science, efforts to protect science from its interference remain inadequate. This, combined with growing evidence that other industries are engaging in similar practices, illustrates the urgent need to develop more robust systems to protect scientific integrity.

Exploring the Twitter activity around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco companies' intentions to influence the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) via the Conference of Parties (COP; the official biannual meeting where Parties review the Convention) are well documented. We aimed to analyse Twitter data to gain insights into tobacco industry tactics, arguments and allies. METHODS: We retrieved 9089 tweets that included #COP8FCTC between 1 and 9 October 2018. We categorised the tweets' content and sentiment through manual coding and machine learning. We used an investigative procedure using publicly available information to categorise the most active Twitter users and investigate tobacco industry links. Network analysis was used to visualise interactions and detect communities. RESULTS: Most tweets were about next-generation products (NGPs) or 'harm reduction' (54%) and tended to argue in support of NGPs; around one-quarter were critical of tobacco control (24%). The largest proportion of most active tweeters were NGP advocates, and slightly over half of those had either links to the Philip Morris International (PMI) funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) and/or to the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations, a network to whom the FSFW granted US$100 300 in 2018. PMI was the most active transnational tobacco company during COP8. CONCLUSIONS: The nature of the activity on Twitter around COP8, including a substantial online presence by PMI executives and NGP advocates with links to organisations funded directly and indirectly by PMI, is highly consistent with PMI's 2014 corporate affairs strategy, which described engaging tobacco harm reduction advocates to 'amplify and leverage the debate on harm reduction' around events such as the COP.

Paying lip service to publication ethics: scientific publishing practices and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.

Litigation forced the dissolution of three major tobacco industry-funded organisations because of their egregious role in spreading scientific misinformation. Yet in 2017, a new scientific organisation-the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW)-was launched, funded entirely by tobacco corporation Philip Morris International (PMI). Experts fear FSFW similarly serves to benefit its funder's scientific and political agenda. We present three case studies of FSFW's publishing practices to explore: whether FSFW and its affiliates are acting with scientific integrity in their attempts to publish research; how conflicts of interest (COI) are governed in the journals FSFW targets; whether scientific publishing needs to be better protected from the tobacco industry in light of this, and if so, how. FSFW and its grantees have resorted to repeated obfuscation when publishing their science. FSFW staff have failed to act transparently and arguably have sought control over editorial processes (at times facilitated by PR firm, Ruder Finn). FSFW-funded organisations (including its Italian 'Centre of Excellence') and researchers affiliated with FSFW (including those working as editors and peer-reviewers) have failed to disclose their links to FSFW and PMI. While journals also failed to apply their COI policies, including on tobacco industry-funded research, the findings highlight that such policies are almost entirely dependent on researchers fully declaring all potential COIs. The paper explores ways to address these problems, including via standardised reporting of COI and funding in journals; journal policies prohibiting publication of tobacco industry-funded science; development of an author-centric database of financial interests; and legally mandated tobacco industry financial contributions to fund science on new tobacco and nicotine products.

The Science for Profit Model-How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice.

Science has been at the centre of attempts by major industries, including tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical, to delay progress in tackling threats to human and planetary health by, inter alia, obscuring industry harms, and opposing regulation. Some aspects of this influence are well documented, others remain poorly understood, and similarities between industries remain underexplored. This study, therefore, aims to synthesise the literature to develop an evidence-based typology and model of corporate influence on science in order to provide an overview of this multi-faceted phenomenon. We obtained literature examining corporate attempts to influence science and the use of science in policy and practice from: database searches, bibliographies, expert recommendations, and web alerts; using a modified scoping review methodology (n = 68). Through interpretive analysis we developed the Science for Profit Typology and Model. We identified eight corporate sectors repeatedly engaging in activities to influence science, including: manipulation of scientific methods; reshaping of criteria for establishing scientific "proof"; threats against scientists; and clandestine promotion of policy reforms that increase reliance on industry evidence. The typology identifies five macro-level strategies used consistently across the eight industries, comprising 19 meso-level strategies. The model shows how these strategies work to maximise the volume, credibility, reach, and use of industry-favourable science, while minimising these same aspects of industry-unfavourable science. This creates doubt about harms of industry products/practices or efficacy of policies affecting industry; promotes industry-favoured policy responses and industry products as solutions; and legitimises industry's role as scientific stakeholder. These efforts ultimately serve to weaken policy, prevent litigation, and maximise use of industry products/practices-maximising corporate profitability. We provide an accessible way to understand how and why corporations influence science, demonstrate the need for collective solutions, and discuss changes needed to ensure science works in the public interest.

Policies affecting the supply and access of opioid analgesics: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to describe and map the range of evaluated policies that affect the supply and access of opioids for analgesic therapy. INTRODUCTION: There has been increasing concern regarding the rise in opioid analgesic misuse and related harms, including overdose deaths. In response, policies have been developed and implemented to reduce the burden of opioid-related problems, including strategies that aim to affect the supply and/or access of opioid analgesics. However, little is known about the range and nature of these policies, including whether they have been evaluated for effectiveness and how. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies to be included must evaluate the effectiveness of policies directly designed to affect the supply and/or access of opioids for analgesic therapy, and measure clinical and health services outcomes quantitatively. Studies that assessed interventions or factors impacting the use of these policies, measured only utilization of the policy itself, and/or measured outcomes regarding attitudes and behaviors towards these policies will be excluded. Literature on policies for the treatment and management of opioid abuse, overdose, or addiction will be excluded. METHODS: Multiple databases will be searched including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science using keywords, indexed terms, and phrases for the following concepts: opioid, policy, evaluation, and clinical context. Each included study will be rated using a modified version of the JBI Levels of Evidence framework. Details on included policies and their assessment will be extracted, and results presented in diagrams and tables.