Replies to post #351 on Vector Group Ltd (VGR)

[EZ2]

March 26, 2008, 9:01 am
Cigarette Maker Funded Lung Cancer Scanning Study
Posted by Jacob Goldstein

A cigarette company was a major funder of a much-publicized study of CT scanning as a way to screening smokers for lung cancer.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006, had a long list of backers, including the National Institutes of Health.

In the middle of the list was the Foundation for Early Detection of Lung Cancer. The foundation received $3.6 million in grants from the Vector Group, the parent company of cigarette maker Liggett, the New York Times’ Gardiner Harris reports this morning.

Claudia Henschke, of Weill Cornell Medical College, was the lead researcher on the study and the president of the foundation, and the dean of the school was a director.

The financial ties were no secret: Vector issued a press release in 2000, saying that it intended to give $2.4 million to to finance Henschke’s research. Articles in Business Week and USA Today mentioned the gift, the NYT notes.

“It seems clear that you are trying to suggest that Cornell was trying to conceal this gift, which is entirely false,” Henschke and her co-author wrote in a statement to the Times. “The gift was announced publicly, the advocacy and public health community knew about it, it is quite easy to look it up on the Internet, its board has independent Cornell faculty on it, and it was fully disclosed to grant funding organizations.”

Still, some key players were unaware that the researchers received money from the tobacco industry. “In the seven years that I’ve been here, we have never knowingly published anything supported by” a cigarette maker, the editor in chief of the New England Journal told the NYT.

The American Cancer Society funded Henschke’s research, too, but would not have done so had it known of the grants from the tobacco company, the group’s chief medical officer told the paper. “If you’re using blood money, you need to tell people you’re using blood money,” he said.

Bonus Disclosure: Earlier this week, JAMA published Henschke’s report of “undisclosed potential conflicts of interest” regarding patents on their lung cancer screening work. For more on that side of things, see this Health Blog post.

Photo by GypsyRock via Flickr

Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/03/26/cigarette-maker-funded-lung-cancer-scanning-study/?mod=WSJBlog/trackback/
Save & Share: Share on Facebook | Del.icio.us | Digg this | Email This | Print
Read more: Cancer, Research
More related content


Comments
Report offensive comments to [e-mail]
If the funds were donated to a charitable organization and then sent to the project what was the problem, everything was disclosed. Personally I think it was a good thing for Vector to do. Would you rather they spent it on product advertising? Smoking and the risks associated are common knowledge and has been for decades. If people eat at McDonalds is there any greater risk from a big mac ? The study may save lives and that should be the focus, they did not influence the outcome of the research.

Comment by David - March 26, 2008 at 9:26 am
A telling editorial bias in a leading scientific journal:

“In the seven years that I’ve been here, we have never knowingly published anything supported by a cigarette maker”, the editor in chief of the New England Journal told the NYT.

If I receive dividends from a cigarette maker and donate, does the cancer society need to know I am donating “blood money”. Would that devalue my donation?

Comment by 2 cents - March 26, 2008 at 9:46 am
Even by the usual low standards of pharma-bashing, this is ridiculous. The PharmaScolds seem as dogmatic, self-serving, and self-righteous as McCarthy, and are just getting more and more emboldened by the fact that no one dares speak up against their absurdity.

Comment by Dr.D. - March 26, 2008 at 9:47 am
Very legitimate questions concerning the methodology and conclusions of the Weill Cornell study on CT scans and lung cancer were buried in the breathless article.

Science would be well served if we paid more attention to substantive issues rather than to funding, which is at best only an indicator of potential bias. Every study, regardless of funding sources, should be reviewed and debated with equal skepticism.

Focusing only on industry funding gives other studies a free-pass. I look forward to the day when with equal vigor the media discloses, for instance, that oft-cited environmental studies are typically funded by foundations whose missions are furthered by the study results.

Comment by Jeff Stier, ACSH - March 26, 2008 at 10:49 am
I hope the day can come when the tone of our collective discourse can reach the level attained by Sen. Obama in his recent discussion on race. We’re adults, we can think like adults, and we ought to be able to debate the issues like adults. Why on Earth would I care if a source of funding, which has been properly disclosed, was “x” or “y”? I thought transparency was everyone’s answer to the evils of potential conflicts of interest? Surely we would want research to be performed that will help detect lung cancer, which is one of the deadliest forms of cancer out there?

Comment by David in NYC - March 26, 2008 at 10:58 am
Any funding for research from an organization that has a vested interest in the study outcome has less scientific merit. The researchers are prone to be biased toward the agenda of the underwriter. Also, organizations may only fund studies that have the potential to promote their agenda. Better studies that are less likely to benefit the underwriter may not get funded. In this situation, the government (your tax dollars) eventually was compelled to fund a better, larger, and less biased study to protect the public health.

Comment by Max - March 26, 2008 at 11:34 am
I may be a little thick, but how would a cigarette company benefit directly from knowing whether CT scans detect cancer? Would it use it in its advertising (which is forbidden anyhow)? I applaud Vector for this, no matter what I may think of their other activities. And, please, does anyone really believe that only commercial funding sources have biases?!

Comment by N.A.M. - March 26, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Good question above, but as the NYT points out, and I would not have immediately thought of this, if screening “works,” smoking becomes less onerous, acceptable to users of tobacco. I think this ia a very reasonable point, and not one to be brushed over.

Comment by N.A.M. - March 26, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I did not post the above comment, nor do I agree with its content.

Comment by N.A.M. - March 26, 2008 at 12:21 pm
N.A.M. — No one is saying only commercial funding sources have biases. That’s a straw man argument. We do not know what the tobacco company execs are thinking but 12:19’s comment is one possibility. It is not necessary to know the reason the tobacco company donated the money. The money is tainted no matter what the reason is.

Comment by Marilyn - March 26, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Perhaps the states should refuse to accept “tainted” tobacco money generated by the tobacco settlement.

It is very far-fetched to believe that smokers would be comforted by knowing that if they get cancer they could be cured by a painful and debilitating treatment process.

Comment by Sol - March 26, 2008 at 4:16 pm

[EZ2]

UPDATE 1-US House panel backs bill giving FDA tobacco power
Wed Apr 2, 2008 6:29pm EDT
(Adds reaction, paragraphs 9-10, 16)

By Kim Dixon

WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - A U.S. House of Representatives committee on Wednesday passed a bill for the first time that would give the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate tobacco.

Funded exclusively by millions of dollars of user-fees levied on the industry, the bill would give power to the FDA over cigarettes and other forms of tobacco, an idea backed by public health groups, some tobacco companies and many Democrats.

Supporters cited the grim public health toll of smoking, which is the biggest preventable cause of death in the United States, responsible for 400,000 deaths and $100 billion in health care costs annually.

"It's hard to believe that the FDA regulates toothpaste but not cigarettes," New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone said in backing the bill. "This will force companies to substantiate claims" about the risks of cigarettes, he said.

The bill passed the House Energy and Commerce committee in a 38-12 vote and would authorize the FDA to police cigarette labeling, restrict sales, prohibit flavored cigarettes and recall tobacco products seen as unreasonably harmful.

The FDA would also have to approve all new cigarettes and other tobacco products, and set standards for so-called reduced-risk products. The agency would not be empowered to ban cigarettes or require nicotine levels of zero under the bill.

Total fees to fund the new activities would be ramped up from $85 million in the first year to $712 million in the tenth year and beyond. The fees would be assessed based on market share per product for each tobacco company.

The bill's most vocal proponent from industry has been the nation's largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris, a unit of Altria Group Inc (MO.N: Quote, Profile, Research). The legislation has recently won support from a host of smaller tobacco companies and retailers.

After a decade of failed efforts in the House, backers said the tide has turned with most of the public opposed to smoking, and lawmakers less tied to tobacco interests.

"It's a different day in Congress on tobacco," said Gregg Haifley, director of federal relations with the Cancer Action Network. "Finally public health is winning."

The bill is expected to pass the full House, but will face a tougher fight in the Senate where it is procedurally easier to block bills.

Last August, a Senate committee endorsed a similar bill with the support of health groups and Altria.

Since then, the bills have picked up significant bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. The House measure now has about 220 co-sponsors, while the Senate version has at least 55.

Some companies say the bill could spur industry consolidation because bigger companies would be best able to comply with it. A provision was added to the House bill requiring the Federal Trade Commission to study the impact the law would have on competition in the industry.

FDA RESOURCES

Some tobacco companies have opposed FDA regulation and the White House is wary of the idea.

A U.S. Health and Human Services spokesman said the Bush Administration has "significant concerns" about the bill, and is worried it would load new responsibilities on the FDA and possibly create a misconception that tobacco is safe.

FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, has said the bill would be extremely difficult to implement.

Reynolds American Inc (RAI.N: Quote, Profile, Research), maker of Camel cigarettes, staunchly opposes the bill, saying, like many Republican lawmakers, that the FDA is already stretched thin just regulating drugs and food.

Reynolds has been running advertisements in districts of lawmakers with tobacco interests.

"It's not the FDA's role in my opinion to be the cigarette cops on the beat," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee.

Barton and some other Republicans suggested that another agency, such as the Federal Trade Commission, would be a more appropriate authority.

Parts of the bill giving smaller tobacco companies more time to comply and requiring foreign tobacco products to be subject to the same rules won over some prior opponents.

"In my home district of eastern North Carolina, tobacco is more than just an agricultural product, it is a livelihood," said Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a Democrat who now supports the bill. (Additional reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh, editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Tim Dobbyn)