An astroturf scientific journal

I wrote earlier about how tobacco company documents, released as apart of the Tobacco Settlement Agreement proved that Philip Morris created to argue that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) was harmless. Those documents also tell the story of how they set up a scientific journal controlled by tobacco-friendly editors so that research finding that ETS was harmless could be published. In 1987 Philip Morris cam up with a plan (details in this document) to:

Establish a genuine scientific journal on indoor air quality. The journal could be issued four times a year at a cost of $100,000.

The journal they founded is Indoor and Built Environment. The journal does not mention that it was founded and funded by the tobacco industry. The whole story is detailed in a recent paper in the Lancet by Garne, Watson, Chapman and Byrne. They analysed the content of articles in Indoor and Built Environment and discovered:

61% (40/66) of papers related to environmental tobacco smoke that were published in Indoor and Built Environment in the study period reached conclusions that could be judged to be industry-positive. Of these, 90% (36/40) had at least one author with a history of association with the tobacco industry. These figures can be compared with Barnes and Bero's study of 68 articles on environmental tobacco smoke randomly selected from MEDLINE published between 1980 and 1994, which found 76.5% concluding environmental tobacco smoke to be "harmful", and the same authors' analysis of 106 reviews of this same topic, which found that 74% of reviews concluding environmental tobacco smoke was not harmful were written by authors with tobacco industry affiliations.

Conveniently enough, Indoor and Built Environment did not require its authors to disclose interests such as tobacco company funding. Garne et als conclusion is rather understated:

On the basis of the evidence presented in this paper, there is a serious concern that the tobacco industry may have been unduly influential on the content of the journal. The industry and its lawyers expected that the establishment of the International Society of the Built Environment would publish "overall results [which] will be positive and important". It appears to be the case that its expectations were in large part fulfilled.

I wonder what's next? Perhaps the astroturfers will establish their own country where all the health organiziations agree that ETS is harmless.


More like this

To continue to explain how terribly misguided Mooney and Nisbet are about ignoring denialist campaigns I think it's time to go over the history of one of the most effective denialist campaigns ever. That is the concerted effort by the major tobacco companies (RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson,…
I'm currently in Las Vegas anxiously waiting for The Amazing Meeting to start. Believe it or not, I'll even be on a panel! While I'm gone, I'll probably manage to do a new post or two, but, in the meantime, while I'm away communing with fellow skeptics at TAM7, I'll be reposting some Classic…
"What do you think about second hand smoke?" he asked me. I sensed ulterior motives behind the question, but I wasn't sure. I suspected that he was just looking for an argument. "It's bad," I joked. "Some have told me that the studies don't show any health problems from second hand smoke," he…
John Quiggin has some comments on Roger Bate's response to our article in Prospect on Rachel Carson. My response to Bate will take more than one post. Let's start with this paragraph: I was never a tobacco lobbyist. After I wrote two articles on tobacco-related topics in 1996 and 1997, I consulted…

Not really the subject of your post, but what evidence is there that Phillip Morris created The two articles in that post don't provide any; the PR Watch article, as I read it, suggests that it's Milloy's personal enterprise. What do you have that claims "TASSC and shared the same address?"

The astroturf medical journal is a perfect next step. At last we'll have scientific documentation that salt is good for you, processed food is healthy, and low-carb diets (or whatever the fad of the moment is) are a great idea. I understand that Talon News has some ex-"journalists" who might be looking for jobs; their experience in fake news should be just as useful in publishing fake medical research.

Actually the next logical step is to set up an astroturf citation index to "prove" that the papers published in the astroturf journals are being accepted as valid by the broader scientific community.

Then how about an astroturf university with a Ronald McDonald chair of nutrition; a Phillip Morris chair of public health and a Texaco chair of Climate Science?

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 01 Mar 2005 #permalink

Jeff, the key document Tim linked to was a

letter to Philip Morris from the PR firm APCO Associates.

It read in part:

"I am pleased to present you with an outline of APCO Associates Inc.'s (APCO) proposed activities on behalf of Philip Morris, USA, for 1994.
We are very excited about the development and progress of TASSC ...."

Regarding the shared address, I don't know what Tim's source was, but we have the following from

The phone number for is registered to "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" (a well exposed corporate front group and a former project of the EOP Group) at 1155 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 300 in Washington, DC. This is the same phone number and address Milloy has used for the Citizens for the Integrity of Science,,, and of course, the defunct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. The fax number used on numerous press releases over the years is "an interoffice fax" at 1155 Connecticut Ave NW,. according to a simple internet search.

Damn -- If I'd been eight seconds quicker, my post would not have been obsolete by the time it appeared!