ArticleTobacco control2024
Document analysis of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World's scientific outputs and activities: a case study in contemporary tobacco industry agnogenesis.
Article in Tobacco control, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of heated tobacco products on biomarkers of potential harm and adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Tobacco control · 2026Pooled it
- Tobacco industry influence on breast cancer research, policy and public opinion: scoping the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents.Tobacco control · 2026Article
- Message Valence, Industry Influence, and Stakeholder Narratives in Global Conversations on Tobacco Harm Reduction: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Scalable evaluation framework for retrieval augmented generation in tobacco research using large Language models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Why addressing conflicts of interest is essential to progress in reducing commercially driven health harms: Lessons from tobacco.Future healthcare journal · 2025Article
- "Keep it a secret": Leaked Documents Suggest Philip Morris International, and Its Japanese Affiliate, Continue to Exploit Science for Profit.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
- PMI-funded foundation for a smoke-free world: application of criteria to assess funding models that include financial support from the tobacco industry.Tobacco control · 2025Article
- 20th anniversary of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control coming into force: time for a step change in ambition.Lancet (London, England) · 2025Article
- Why did Swiss citizens vote to ban tobacco advertising?Tobacco control · 2025Article
- New image, same tactics: global tobacco and vaping industry strategies to promote youth vaping.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Industry influences on science and policy: identifying levers for independence.Tobacco control · 2024Article
- There is no place for Tobacco Industry sponsorship in Continuing Professional Development.Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTobacco corporation Philip Morris International launched the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), a purportedly independent scientific organisation, in 2017. We aimed to systematically investigate FSFW's activities and outputs, comparing these with previous industry attempts to influence science, as identified in the recently developed typology of corporate influence on science, the Science for Profit Model (SPM).
designWe prospectively collected data on FSFW over a 4-year period, 2017-2021, and used document analysis to assess whether FSFW's activities mirror practices tobacco and other industries have historically used to shape science in their own interests. We used the SPM as an analytical framework, working deductively to search for use of the strategies it identifies, and inductively to search for any additional strategies.
resultsMarked similarities between FSFW's practices and previous corporate attempts to influence science were observed, including: producing tobacco industry-friendly research and opinion; obscuring industry involvement in science; funding third parties which denigrate science and scientists that may threaten industry profitability; and promoting tobacco industry credibility.
conclusionsOur paper identifies FSFW as a new vehicle for agnogenesis, indicating that, over 70 years since the tobacco industry began to manipulate science, efforts to protect science from its interference remain inadequate. This, combined with growing evidence that other industries are engaging in similar practices, illustrates the urgent need to develop more robust systems to protect scientific integrity.
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.