Suppr超能文献

旧方式,新手段:自《主协议和解》以来烟草行业对学术和私营部门科学家的资助

Old ways, new means: tobacco industry funding of academic and private sector scientists since the Master Settlement Agreement.

作者信息

Schick Suzaynn F, Glantz Stanton A

机构信息

Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

出版信息

Tob Control. 2007 Jun;16(3):157-64. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.017186.

Abstract

When, as a condition of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) in 1998, US tobacco companies disbanded the Council for Tobacco Research and the Center for Indoor Air Research, they lost a vital connection to scientists in academia and the private sector. The aim of this paper was to investigate two new research projects funded by US tobacco companies by analysis of internal tobacco industry documents now available at the University of California San Francisco (San Francisco, California, USA) Legacy tobacco documents library, other websites and the open scientific literature. Since the MSA, individual US tobacco companies have replaced their industry-wide collaborative granting organisations with new, individual research programmes. Philip Morris has funded a directed research project through the non-profit Life Sciences Research Office, and British American Tobacco and its US subsidiary Brown and Williamson have funded the non-profit Institute for Science and Health. Both of these organisations have downplayed or concealed their true level of involvement with the tobacco industry. Both organisations have key members with significant and long-standing financial relationships with the tobacco industry. Regulatory officials and policy makers need to be aware that the studies these groups publish may not be as independent as they seem.

摘要

1998年,作为《主和解协议》(MSA)的一项条件,美国烟草公司解散了烟草研究理事会和室内空气研究中心,从而失去了与学术界和私营部门科学家的重要联系。本文的目的是通过分析现已存于美国加利福尼亚大学旧金山分校(美国加利福尼亚州旧金山)遗留烟草文献图书馆、其他网站及公开科学文献中的烟草行业内部文件,对由美国烟草公司资助的两个新研究项目进行调查。自《主和解协议》签署以来,美国各烟草公司已用新的单独研究项目取代了全行业协作的资助机构。菲利普·莫里斯公司通过非营利性的生命科学研究办公室资助了一个定向研究项目,英美烟草公司及其美国子公司布朗·威廉姆森公司资助了非营利性的科学与健康研究所。这两个组织都淡化或隐瞒了它们与烟草行业的实际参与程度。这两个组织都有一些关键成员与烟草行业有着重大且长期的财务关系。监管官员和政策制定者需要意识到,这些团体发表的研究可能并不像看上去那么独立。

相似文献

5
Tobacco industry influence on science and scientists in Germany.烟草行业对德国科学及科学家的影响。
Am J Public Health. 2006 Jan;96(1):20-32. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.061507. Epub 2005 Nov 29.

引用本文的文献

4
The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review.产业资助对研究议程的影响:范围综述。
Am J Public Health. 2018 Nov;108(11):e9-e16. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304677. Epub 2018 Sep 25.

本文引用的文献

5
Tobacco money at the University of California.加利福尼亚大学的烟草资金。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005 May 15;171(10):1067-9. doi: 10.1164/rccm.2503001.
6
Tobacco industry manipulation of research.烟草行业对研究的操纵。
Public Health Rep. 2005 Mar-Apr;120(2):200-8. doi: 10.1177/003335490512000215.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验