The American Journal of Public Health is the flagship publication of the American Public Health Association, which has more than 25,000 members worldwide. The AJPH boasts that it is “a highly influential publication,” which is why I accepted an invitation from editor-in-chief Alfredo Morabia in 2020 to comment in a journal forum on FDA regulation of e-cigarettes. At that time Morabia invited a range of experts, both advocates and supporters of FDA tobacco regulation and critics.
Notably, I and Derek Yach, former president of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, acknowledged our conflicts of interest with the tobacco industry. My commentary, which was critical of FDA actions, was published here. (I had first published in AJPH a quarter century before.)
At the time of the forum, AJPH editors wrote, “we will invite everyone to reassess the situation in a year.” After a delay perhaps caused by Covid, on March 16, 2022 I was invited by Morabia to submit a commentary by April 1. Neither AJPH invitation email provided any guidance as to form or content for my submission.
I did so, and you can read the draft here. On April 22, Morabia summarily rejected my commentary. That same day, I wrote to him, expressing my confusion and asking for reconsideration (available here). There was no response.
I was, by the way, not the only person invited to submit a commentary that was then summarily rejected. The same thing happened to Yach.
In the meantime, AJPH published commentaries from other forum participants in its July 2022 issue of the AJPH – along with an editorial authored by Morabia entitled “Scientific Publishing and the Tobacco Industry.” It’s highly unusual for a journal editor to invite commentaries, reject them, then publish an editorial naming and blaming the rejected authors. Yes, he named and blamed us: “Two groups of authors who had contributed to the first round [in 2020] refused to contribute [in 2022] because the journal had published these two industry-funded opinions [by Yach and Rodu].”
Why would Morabia publish an editorial on papers he didn’t publish, especially after inviting them?
Morabia wrote that in 2020 he “checked [for industry’s expectations of FDA regulation] by asking Derek Yach…and Brad Radu [sic]…to comment,” and he characterized our commentaries as “an important piece of information for our dossier.” He then wrote that: “AJPH does not publish research that is totally or in part funded by the tobacco industry. AJPH also has stringent criteria for letters to the editors and bars any research results from being published through this back door.”
Nothing he wrote makes sense. First, there is no mention of a tobacco-funding publishing ban on the AJPH website. And in any case, Yach and I didn’t write about “research results.” We offered opinions – ones which Morabia had solicited.
Second, in my case the underlying facts of his invitation-rejection-name-blame actions are inaccurate. The grants were not given directly to me. As a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, I do not “receive” grants. Rather, as stated in my commentary, my “research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund.” This treatment of the funds is vital to maintaining complete independence and scientific integrity of my research and publications.
To his credit, Morabia agreed to make corrections to his article in follow-up emails between us from June 27 and July 18 this year. In addition to correcting the spelling of my name, he offered to make this change: “Dr Brad Rodu conducts research with funds from unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville, but Dr Rodu stresses that: The opinions he expressed in his Comment to the American Journal of Public Health were his and did not represent the views of the tobacco industry or any other funding agency.”
I believe that Morabia may have been persuaded by my observation in our follow-up emails that Adnan Hyder published a commentary “in the same issue as your editorial. Hyder disclosed, under the section Conflicts of Interest, that he “is currently (and was previously) funded by several NIH institutes.” Hyder also wrote “The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not represent the views of George Washington University or any funding agency supporting the author, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH).” Hyder’s opinions are independent of those of NIH, just as mine are independent of industry. Coloring my opinions and findings as “industry-funded” unfairly characterizes them as tainted, when they should be viewed as equally objective as those of government-funded academicians. Character assassination by innuendo has no place in scientific discourse.
Morabia also made a perplexing but, for an editor, a soul-baring admission: “if the data cannot be trusted, peer review will not help.” I can sympathize with his frustration with peer review. I have identified and published many problems with tobacco research in highly ranked journals that were overlooked by reviewers.
All scientific research should be subjected to rigorous objective review. When pre-publication editorial and peer review fail to identify deficiencies, honest criticism should be encouraged and acknowledged by offending publications, regardless of the source. As Morabia noted: “Millions of lives are at stake.”
Brad Rodu is a professor of medicine and holds an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research at the University of Louisville. Conflict of interest disclosures are available at https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
“ The grants were not given directly to me. As a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, I do not “receive” grants. Rather, as stated in my commentary, my “research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund.” ”
Your argument is that because the money is laundered through other organizations first, it doesn’t count as coming from the tobacco industry? Wow. That’s…impressive.
He disclosed the source of the grants, he was just clarifying that they were not paid to him directly, as payments from industry to researchers or physicians sometimes are. Being transparent like this lets readers make their own decisions about how potential conflicts of interest may influence published research. He didn’t hide anything.
Most state public health tobacco programs are funded by… the Master Settlement Agreement, aka, Big Tobacco.
Saying, “As a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, I do not ‘receive’ grants,” is legalistic and totally disingenuous. I don’t “directly” receive my research grants either; they go through my university employer. However, for me to claim that I am not the one who is receiving the grants would be intentionally misleading.
Physicians often receive direct payments from industry sources, so the legalistic qualification might be appropriate. I agree, however, that the technical difference is without a distinction, as I believe the lawyers say….
I would rather get view points from all different angles before drawing my conclusions. Keep in mind that funding from companies that sell, prescribe or administer anti depressants support many of the anti tobacco research positions. As antidepressants have replaced tobacco as the most pervasive mood stabilizers I would argue they have a vested interest as well.
This sounds awfully silly. The authors are tobacco industry funded, are not hiding the fact, but were invited to contribute anyway? Did the editors not know the authors were industry funded?
One look at Rodu’s blog reveals it to be cut from the same die as climate change denialism and other “FUD science”. Sow doubt and imply that public policy is being decided before the science is firmly settled, with the end goal of delaying regulations.
Although the journal’s M.O. was inconsistent and they could have handled it better, ultimately I believe they made the right call to not publish the work. My only surprise and disappointment is that a quality blog like RW gave this individual space to air their grievances.
I believe Rodu is also fundamentally wrong in the opinion that industry funded studies “should be viewed as equally objective as those of government-funded academicians”. This is absolutely not the case, and is the very reason why most journals require a conflict of interests statement!
Paul Brookes misquoted me. I didn’t write that industry funded studies “should be viewed as equally objective as those of government-funded academicians.” I was talking about opinions in commentaries. With respect to “studies,” I wrote that “All scientific research should be subjected to rigorous objective review. When pre-publication editorial and peer review fail to identify deficiencies, honest criticism should be encouraged and acknowledged by offending publications, regardless of the source.”
I conduct post-publication peer review in my blog. I encourage Mr. Brookes to take more than “one look,” because my entries deny nothing except the fear, uncertainty and doubt introduced by exaggerated and distorted tobacco research studies. My source links and critical analysis support and document everything I say. Any credible disagreements or mistakes are answered, acknowledged and/or corrected.
“Paul Brookes misquoted me. I didn’t write that industry funded studies “should be viewed as equally objective as those of government-funded academicians.” I was talking about opinions in commentaries.”
Here’s what you said in the RW article:
“Coloring my opinions and _findings_ (emphasis added) as “industry-funded” unfairly characterizes them as tainted, when they should be viewed as equally objective as those of government-funded academicians.”
What are “findings” if not research? I don’t see that you were misquoted.
In order for your comment to be valid and accurate, you should be aware that whenever you use the term “I believe” which is a synonym for “I don’t know” and you cannot prove the point it is better to refrain from I believe, and uses other terms, as I assume, allege, guesses………
Nevertheless, one can believe in GOD.
In a society known for being litigious, the use of “I believe” is critical. Opinions are somewhat more protected. Stating something as a fact can get one into more trouble than stating it as an opinion. “That person is an idiot” is seen very differently by lawyers, versus “I think that person is an idiot.”
All excellent points. On that topic – what is the process of publishing these types of “editorials” at RW? Is there a “Letter to the Editor” feature, are these all invited contributions, or a mix of both?
A mix of both. Sometimes the authors approach us with a story that we think is best told with a guest post, sometimes we see a post on social media or somewhere else that makes us think there is a larger story to be told, so we invite them.
Maybe take a look at the decisions that led to this one and reconsider them. This has made me question my high opinion of retractionwatch.
I disagree. I’m a long-time RW reader and I found this post to be quite interesting. I’m a bit skeptical as to the conflict of interests faced by the author, but think that he’s disclosed those conflicts adequately. I am glad RW posted this.
Indeed.
Another case:
https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/29/managed-retreat/#reality-based-communities
“When I turned in the text of my talk, the World Economic Forum uninvited me from their virtual event. “
I am curious who endows Dr. Rodu’s named professorship. Also, if we were to substitute “unrestricted grants from [name of pharma]” at my institution (like most other academic medical center), any research and publications related to products of that pharma would be subject to intensive management and monitoring that would distance the conflicted investigator from direct supervision of the research. Also, I could not find CoI disclosures at the website cited in the report — if there, they should be very prominent.
Since 1999 I have fully disclosed unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Alabama at Birmingham (1999-2005) and the University of Louisville (2005-present), in observance of all of those institutions’ policies. The disclosure is prominently displayed under “My Credentials” each and every time one of my 600+ blog posts loads on https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/.
This would be much easier if researchers were to refuse de accept any direct or indirect funding from the tobacco industry – an industry with a history of obfuscation, and denial of the facts. How long did it take before that sector accepted the real harm done by its products? How many regulations have been opposed with biased research? With that history, handling any money from them should be enough to cast doubts on work.
“an industry with a history of obfuscation, and denial of the facts.”
Which includes healthcare, firearms, chemicals, petroleum… and probably goes back to the conflicts between the farming and ranching industry as represented by Cain and Abel.
Anon believes that “the tobacco industry – an industry with a history of obfuscation, and denial of the facts” should be refused as a source of research funding. The problem is that virtually all potential research sponsors, including corporations as well as governmental and non-governmental organizations, have some bias or agenda. Eliminating all as sources of research funds would reduce research efforts to a trickle. The practical answer is to buffer the funding through third parties, such as universities; insist on independence and transparency; and subject findings to rigorous independent fact-finding and peer review.
This is a fascinating counter. You claim that “all potential research sponsors […] have some bias or agenda.” By doing so you try to assert that the bias of these sponsors is of the same magnitude and direction – a false equivalence that does sow doubt on the motives of one actor (government) to the benefit of another (tobbaco). That this is a false equivalency has been demonstrated and proven in countless law suits that helped uncover the information policies and attitude the tobacco industry had to research finds and the truth. But even if we wouldn’t have this evidence, a simple thought experiment would suffice. What is the motivation of the government for bias? In general the government has a mandate to protect its populace, and arguably if the government does this well, it will profit. Its bias might be misguided but it fundamentally will be to the benefit of the population. The bias the tobacco industry has is also simple to grasp: it has a bias to profit maximisation (as it should be in our system) and this is best achieved by maximising revenues (means more smokers, longer smokers, selling alternatives to cigarette that still make addicted) and minimise cost (meaning e.g. less legal cost by using “science” to deny causal relationships between their products and negative societal outcomes). This behaviour again has been well documented in the past.
To sum up: You offer a false equivalence of biases that don’t withstand even the most basic scrutiny and observable facts of the past.
With a track record like the tobacco industry, it’s no surprise that Rodu gets no heroes welcome. He may be correct that a ban on tobacco is a pipe dream (no pun intended), but his position to move toward less restrictive policy cannot be seen as scientific since his sponsors are convicted killers. So we may throw out the baby…
Relevance to RW? No retraction here.
Retraction watch loses credibility here. I have no interest in the personal dramas of a tobacco industry funded researcher.
First off, it is undeniably extremely poor form for an EIC of a public health journal to reach out to a researcher and influencer on tobacco health effects, whom the EIC knew to be financially supported by the tobacco industry, and then not publish the commentary on the grounds that it was at least indirectly funded by the tobacco industry. Amateur hour at AJPH.
However, the doctor doth protest too much. The tobacco and nicotine industry’s clever research tricks during the 80s through the 00s have indelibly tainted tobacco industry supported research – see “Merchants of Doubt” by Oreskes and Conway or “Bending Science” by Wagner. It would take pretty strong record to show all better now. From this commentary, I have my doubts. Brad Rodu’s RW commentary had a link to his long list of letters to editors about tobacco research articles. Pulling up several, I noted the letters seemed to take exception to research articles finding harm from e-cigarettes/vaping. Accepting for the sake of discussion that Rodu’s criticisms of these studies were valid, I didn’t notice any complaints about papers finding no harmful effects of e-cigarettes and vaping. That and Rodu’s “Tobacco Truth” blog doesn’t seem completely evenhanded (https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2018/05/tobacco-research-is-not-immune-to.html). RW, why are you giving this guy the podium? Just to be contrary and stir people up?
Having formerly worked with colleagues in public health tobacco control programs, those colleagues were completely incapable of answering questions like: “Which is more likely to cause harm: use of cigarettes or use of smokeless tobacco?”
Just as Lysenko “settled the science” in the Soviet Union, there’s an utter incapability to answer basic questions about tradeoffs. The UK government decided that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than tobacco; it must be because Joe Camel has blackmail material on Queen Elizabeth.
Speaking of an “utter incapability” to discuss tobacco usage tradeoffs in a coherent and logical manner:
The Oral Cancer Foundation called out Brad Rodu for saying, “In fact, smokeless tobacco usage is about as safe as automobile usage.”
Why would a dentist, of all people, downplay the dangers of a tobacco product linked to oral cancers and other serious conditions in such a ridiculous manner?