http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7332/257
BMJ 2002;324:257 ( 2 February )
News
Pro-tobacco writer admits he should have declared an interest
Zosia Kmietowicz
Writer and philosopher Roger Scruton, who was discovered last week to be on the
payroll of a large tobacco company, has admitted that he should have
"declared an interest" when he wrote a pamphlet attacking
the World Health Organization for its campaign against tobacco.
He told the BMJ: "Our firm had a consultancy [with Japan
Tobacco Industries] at that time. I was asked independently to do this
[write the pamphlet]. I did not want to mix it up with the consultancy,
but looking back I should have declared an interest."
As a result of Mr Scruton's fall from grace last week, when his financial
connections to Japan Tobacco Industries were revealed, the Institute
of Economic Affairs
the
free-market think tank that published the pamphlet attacking the WHOhas
conceded that it needs an author's declaration policy.
Colin Robinson, the institute's editorial director and a professor of
economics at the University of Surrey, said that the past few days
had represented something of a steep learning curve for those in the
field of social science academia.
"In the past we have relied on our authors to come forward with any competing
interests, but that is going to change," said Professor
Robinson. "In scientific publishing I suppose this sort of
thing has been a problem before, but the news of Roger Scruton has
made us realise that this kind of thing can happen to us too, and we
are developing a policy to ensure it doesn't happen again."
In his pamphlet, WHO, What and Why, Mr Scruton attacked the WHO for
tackling tobacco when in his view it should have been concentrating
on vaccination campaigns and diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS.
His attack was immediately repeated in articles in the Wall
Street Journal, the Times, and the Scotsman, in what
looked like a concerted pro-tobacco campaign (BMJ 2000;320:1482[Full
Text]).
Clive Bates, director of the antismoking campaign group Action on Smoking
and Health, criticised the institute over its poor track record and
said that a policy for authors to declare their financial and other
interests was long overdue.
The news that Mr Scruton, who used to be a professor of aesthetics at
Birkbeck College, London, had been receiving a monthly fee from
Japan Tobacco Industries was revealed in the Guardian last
week when it published a leaked email from him to the company (24 January,
p 1).
In the email, Mr Scruton, who had been receiving a monthly retainer fee of
£4500 ($6300; 
7300),
asked for a £1000 a month pay rise to place more pro-smoking
articles in prestigious newspapers and international magazines. He
declared the amount to be "good value for money in a business
largely conducted by shysters and sharks."
He said that he would aim to place an article every two months in one or
other of the Wall Street Journal, the Times, the Telegraph,
the Spectator, the Financial Times, the Economist, the
Independent, and the New Statesman.
The email, which was sent last October in the name of Sophie, Mr Scruton's wife
and business partner, reveals a far-reaching and ambitious public
relations strategy to make smoking seem less harmful than it is and
criticise government policies on advertising as an attack on civil
liberties.
It says: "I personally would like to see more explicit mention of other
products open to the same criticisms as tobacco and which ought to
be of equal concern to the WHO. For example, fast-food of the
McDonald's variety, which seems to be addictive, is aimed at the
young, is a serious risk to health, with a worse effect on
life-expectancy than cigarettes, and unlike cigarettes, has a
seriously corrosive effect on social relations and family life."
Last week, following the revelations, the Financial Times ended
Scruton's contract as a columnist.
Mr Scruton told the BMJ: "The pamphlet for the Institute of
Economic Affairs arose out of my longstanding concerns about the way
in which legislative powers are being transferred from sovereign bodies
to unaccountable transnational institutions.
"The pamphlet is a review of arguments and not concerned to exonerate
tobacco from the accusation that it is a risky product. In
retrospect, however, I now see that I should have declared an interest."
To read the email and other background see www.ask.org.uk
|
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.