Exposed: the secret corporate funding behind health research

[Guest guest]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1703694,00.html

Exposed: the secret corporate funding behind health

research

Academics and the media have failed dismally to ask

the crucial question of scientists' claims: who is

paying you?

Monbiot

Tuesday February 7, 2006

The Guardian

Three weeks ago, while looking for something else, I

came across one of the most extraordinary documents I

have ever read. It relates to an organisation called

Arise (Associates for Research into the Science of

Enjoyment). Though largely forgotten today, in the

1990s it was one of the world's most influential

public-health groups. First I should explain what it

claimed to stand for.

Arise, founded in 1988, seems to have been active

until 2004. It described itself as " a worldwide

association of eminent scientists who act as

independent commentators " . Its purpose, these eminent

scientists said, was to show how " everyday pleasures,

such as eating chocolate, smoking, drinking tea,

coffee and alcohol, contribute to the quality of

life " .

It maintained that there were good reasons for

dropping our inhibitions and indulging ourselves.

" Scientific studies show that enjoying the simple

pleasures in life, without feeling guilty, can reduce

stress and increase resistance to disease ...

Conversely, guilt can increase stress and undermine

the immune system ... This can lead to, for instance,

forgetfulness, eating disorders, heart problems or

brain damage. " The " health police " , as Arise sometimes

called them, could be causing more harm than good.

Arise received an astonishing amount of coverage.

Between September 1993 and March 1994, for example, it

generated 195 newspaper articles and radio and

television interviews, in places such as the Wall

Street Journal, the International Herald Tribune, the

Independent, the Evening Standard, El País, La

Repubblica, Rai and the BBC. Much of this coverage

resulted from a Mori poll, called Naughty but Nice,

that Arise claimed to have commissioned, into the

guilty pleasures people enjoyed most. Here is a

typical example (this one from Reuters):

" Puritanical health workers who dictate whether people

should smoke or drink alcohol and coffee are trying to

ruin the quality of life, a group of academics said

.... 'Many of us hold the view that it is a person's

right to enjoy these pleasures ...' said Professor

Warburton, a professor of pharmacology at

Reading University in England ... 'Much of health

promotion is based on misinformation. It is

politically driven'. "

The Today programme gave Warburton an uncontested

interview in its prime spot - at 8.20am. He extolled

the calming properties of cigarettes and poured scorn

on public-health messages. Arise has also featured

eight times in the Guardian. Coverage like this

continued until October 2004, when the Times repeated

Arise's claim that we should stop " worrying about

often ill-founded health scares " and " listen to our

bodies, which naturally seek to protect themselves

from disease by doing the things we enjoy. " In

hundreds of articles and transcripts covering its

claims, I have found just one instance of a journalist

- Madeleine Bunting in the Guardian - questioning

either Arise's science or the motivation of the

scientists.

Warburton, who claimed to run the group, was head of

psychopharmacology at the University of Reading. While

Arise was active he published at least a dozen

articles on nicotine in the academic press. In 1989,

in the Psychologist, he mocked the US surgeon

general's finding that nicotine is addictive. Most of

his articles were published in the journal

Psychopharmacology, of which he was a senior editor.

They maintained that nicotine improved both attention

and memory. I have read seven of these papers. On none

of them could I find a declaration of financial

interests, except for two grants from the Wellcome

Trust.

In 1998, as part of a settlement of a class action

against the tobacco companies in the US, the firms

were obliged to place their internal documents in a

public archive. Among them is the one I came across

last month. It is a memo from an executive in the

corporate services department of Philip - the

world's largest tobacco company - to one of her

colleagues. The title is " Arise 1994-95 Activities and

Funding " . " I had a meeting, " she began, " with

Hay and Jacqui son (Rothmans) to agree on the

1994-1995 activity plan for Arise and to discuss the

funding needed. Enclosed is a copy of our

presentation. "

This showed that in the previous financial year Arise

had received $373,400: $2,000 from Coca-Cola, $900

from other firms and the rest - over 99% - from Philip

, British American Tobacco, RJ Reynolds and

Rothmans. In 1994-95 its budget would be $773,750.

Rothmans and RJ Reynolds had each committed to provide

$200,000, and BAT " has also shown interest " . She

suggested that Philip put up $300,000. Then the

memo becomes even more interesting.

" The previous 'Naughty but Nice' Mori poll proved to

be very effective in getting wide media coverage. The

exercise will be repeated this year on the theme of

'Stress in the Workplace' ... A draft questionnaire

was already submitted to [Tony Andrade, Philip

's senior lawyer] and [Matt Winokur, its

director of regulatory affairs] for comments. " " We

decided to hold " Arise's next conference in Europe, it

continued, because of " positive European media

coverage " . Philip had appointed a London PR

agency to run the media operation, set up Arise's

secretariat and help to recruit new members. Arise's

" major spending authorisation and approval would be

handled by an 'informal' Budget Committee involving

PM, Rothmans and possibly RJR and BAT " .

The memo suggests Arise was run not by eminent

scientists but by eminent tobacco companies. This

impression is reinforced by another document in the

tobacco archive, which explains how the group began.

" In 1988 the US Surgeon General said: 'Nicotine was as

addictive as heroin or cocaine.' The industry

responded. A group of academics was identified and

called together to: - review the science of substance

abuse, - separate nicotine from these substances " .

I sent a list of questions to Warburton, but he told

me that he did not have time to answer them. Reading

University replied that it knew Warburton's work had

been sponsored by the tobacco companies. Indeed, the

university itself had received over £300,000 from

Arise, but " from the university's standpoint, the

source of funding for Arise has always been vague " . It

revealed that " Professor Warburton and the University

of Reading were in receipt of BAT research funding

between 1995 and 2003 " . But at no time had it

questioned this funding or sought to oblige Warburton

to declare his interests in academic papers.

Astonishingly, it suggested that this would amount to

" censorship " and " restricting academic freedom " .

The journal Psychopharmacology told me it was unaware

Warburton had been taking money from tobacco firms.

" It is an author's responsibility to disclose sources

of funding, and widely understood that journals

themselves do not expect to police this declaration. "

After a long career untroubled by questions about his

interests or professional ethics, Warburton retired in

2003. He still lectures at Reading as an emeritus

professor.

How much more science is being published in academic

journals with undeclared interests like these? How

many more media campaigns against " overregulation " ,

the " compensation culture " or " unfounded public fears "

have been secretly funded and steered by corporations?

How many more undeclared recipients of corporate money

have been appearing on the Today programme, providing

free public relations for their sponsors? This case

suggests that academia and the media have failed

dismally to exercise sufficient scepticism. Surely

there is one obvious question with which every journal

and every journalist should begin. " Who's funding

you? "

Monbiot.com