ReviewJournal of public health policy2021
The disinformation playbook: how industry manipulates the science-policy process-and how to restore scientific integrity.
Review in Journal of public health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Turning the tables on industry narratives: a health communication playbook for promoting health.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Reviewing ecosystems of evidence: synthesising the evidence on the commercial determinants of health from a complex systems perspective.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- A large language model-based tool for identifying relationships to industry in research on the carcinogenicity of benzene, cobalt, and aspartame.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025Article
- The Rise of Clinical Decision Support Algorithms in Pain Management 2009-2024.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Social media and the spread of misinformation: infectious and a threat to public health.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Advancing whose interests? Corporate strategy and risks to food systems transformation and public health nutrition through academic partnerships in Africa.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Mapping commercial practices of the pesticide industry to shape science and policymaking: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Qualitative study of acceptability, benefits, and feasibility of a food-based intervention among participants and stakeholders of the RATIONS trial.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Australian parents' perceptions of the risks posed by harmful products to the health of children.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Intimidation against advocates and researchers in the tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food spaces: a review.Health promotion international · 2024Review
- Developing structures to support researchers studying health-harming industries.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Review
- The Commercial Determinants of Health and Evidence Synthesis (CODES): methodological guidance for systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Pathways for diversifying and enhancing science advocacy.Science advances · 2023Review
- How does Indian news media report smokeless tobacco control? A content analysis of the gutka ban enforcement.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2022Article
- Mobilizing COVID-19 level public health interventions for climate breakdown is necessary.The journal of climate change and health · 2022Article
- Smoking, nicotine, and COVID-19.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2022Article
- A review of front-of-pack nutrition labelling in Southeast Asia: Industry interference, lessons learned, and future directions.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2022Review
- The Tragedy of Liberal Democratic Governance in the Face of Global Threats.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For decades, corporate undermining of scientific consensus has eroded the scientific process worldwide. Guardrails for protecting science-informed processes, from peer review to regulatory decision making, have suffered sustained attacks, damaging public trust in the scientific enterprise and its aim to serve the public good. Government efforts to address corporate attacks have been inadequate. Researchers have cataloged corporate malfeasance that harms people's health across diverse industries. Well-known cases, like the tobacco industry's efforts to downplay the dangers of smoking, are representative of transnational industries, rather than unique. This contribution schematizes industry tactics to distort, delay, or distract the public from instituting measures that improve health-tactics that comprise the "disinformation playbook." Using a United States policy lens, we outline steps the scientific community should take to shield science from corporate interference, through individual actions (by scientists, peer reviewers, and editors) and collective initiatives (by research institutions, grant organizations, professional associations, and regulatory agencies).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.