文章基本信息

标题：Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms
本地全文：下载
作者：Elisa K. Ong ; Stanton A. Glantz
期刊名称：American journal of public health
印刷版ISSN：0090-0036
出版年度：2001
卷号：91
期号：11
页码：1749-1757
语种：English
出版社：American Public Health Association
摘要：The tobacco industry has attacked “junk science” to discredit the evidence that secondhand smoke—among other environmental toxins—causes disease. Philip Morris used public relations firms and lawyers to develop a “sound science” program in the United States and Europe that involved recruiting other industries and issues to obscure the tobacco industry's role. The European “sound science” plans included a version of “good epidemiological practices” that would make it impossible to conclude that secondhand smoke—and thus other environmental toxins—caused diseases. Public health professionals need to be aware that the “sound science” movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients. THE TERMS “SOUND SCIENCE” and “junk science” have increasingly appeared in the media, medical literature, 1, 2 and litigation. 3 Industries—those responsible for products ranging from silicone gel breast implants 4, 5 to hormone-treated beef 6 to secondhand smoke 7 —claim to be victimized by lawsuits and regulations based on “junk science,” 2, 8 while the scientific, public health, and regulatory communities claim their actions are based on “sound science.” 9– 12 The tobacco industry has always contested the evidence that secondhand smoke endangers nonsmokers 13– 17 ; during the last decade the Philip Morris (PM) tobacco company appropriated the “sound science” concept to attack studies on secondhand smoke. To deal with the tobacco industry's lack of credibility, it developed “sound science” coalitions involving other industries opposed to regulation to support its position, similar to smokers' rights 18, 19 and restaurant association 20, 21 front groups. PM also mounted a sophisticated public relations campaign to promote “good epidemiology practices” (GEP) to shape the standards of scientific proof to make it impossible to “prove” that secondhand smoke—among many other environmental toxins—is dangerous. We analyzed tobacco industry documents made public as a result of litigation in the United States and available on the Internet in an online repository to which documents are continually added as additional and unrelated legal cases are resolved. The documents cited in the reference list were originally accessed between January 2000 and May 2001. Search terms included “IARC,” “TASSC,” “sound science,” “junk science,” “GEP,” and the names of key players. We did not use documents from a related depository covering British American Tobacco in Guildford, England, because of the depository's practical inaccessibility to researchers. 22 If we had used the Guildford documents, they probably would have contributed to a broader story.