Big Tobacco-Funded Study Raises Concerns

More Questions Over Scientific Integrity; Study Says Lung Scans Could Save Smokers From Cancer

(CBS/AP)  The disclosure of hidden tobacco money behind a big study suggesting that lung scans might help save smokers from cancer has shocked the research community and raised fresh concern about industry influence in important science.

Two medical journals that published studies by Weill Cornell Medical College researchers in 2006 are looking into tobacco cash and other financial ties that weren't revealed. The studies reported benefits from lung scans, which the Cornell team has long touted.

It's a crucial public health issue: Dozens of groups, including such anti-smoking crusaders as the American Cancer Society, have given the Cornell team money to see if routinely screening smokers with CT scans can spot the world's most lethal cancer in time to prevent deaths.

The study claimed that an annual CT scan could detect lung cancer early enough to extend a patient's life by at least 10 years, a remarkable survival rate for such a deadly disease, reports CBS News' The Early Show.

The federal government also has given money even though scientists have criticized the Cornell study's design and the government has its own more rigorous study under way.

Many were stunned to learn that a foundation Cornell set up and listed in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2006 as a sponsor of the study actually got $3.6 million from a parent company of cigarette maker Liggett Group Inc. The tobacco source was reported in a New York Times story Wednesday.

Liggett, whose owner was the first to break with other tobacco companies and say that tobacco was addictive and deadly, announced its donation to the Cornell foundation in 2000 in a press release. But the foundation's funding source wasn't disclosed to the journal.

On Wednesday, company spokeswoman Carrie Bloom noted in a statement that the company "had no control or influence over the research."

Scientists must maintain the trust of patients in research studies, and "any breach of that trust is not simply disappointing but, I believe, unacceptable," Dr. John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute, said in a statement.

Any findings from a study tainted by hidden industry ties "will be much less believable," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. The problem is avoidable, he added. "There are plenty of people around who are bright and knowledgeable and don't have conflicts of interest. We need to look harder to find these people."

"It's important for everyone to understand why the medical community is so upset and outraged about this. We must tell the public and our colleagues what the sources of funding for the research we do," Dr. Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at Cleveland Clinic in Chicago told The Early Show. "Medical research is a special trust. Patients' lives depend on what we do."

While Dr. Nissen wouldn't say whether he believed Weill Cornell deliberately concealed where they got the money, he did say that it appeared as though a foundation was set up and money was funded for the study from the tobacco company into this foundation that funded the research.

"So when it was disclosed, you couldn't tell that the money actually came from the tobacco companies," Nissen told the The Early Show. "That's a problem."

The cancer society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said the society would not have contributed to the study if it knew "Big Tobacco" was co-funding the work. Still, there is no sign that the study's findings are tainted, and "it is my belief that something can be learned that can be useful," he said.

The chief Cornell researcher, Dr. Claudia Henschke, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment. Cornell's dean, Dr. Antonio Gotto, said: "The claim that we set this foundation up in order to cover up the money just isn't true. We made a public announcement that we were taking the money from the tobacco company."

In retrospect, Gotto said perhaps the tobacco cash and patents that Cornell researchers hold on related technology should have been disclosed in Henschke's journal articles. Instead, one listed only the Cornell foundation.

Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, said she contacted Henschke months ago after others pointed out patents not disclosed in a July 2006 study. DeAngelis said Henschke didn't believe the patents were relevant to the research and resisted disclosing them.

"We'd been working with Dr. Henschke trying to get her to write a letter of apology - which is our policy - and to take responsibility," DeAngelis said. "It was not easy to get her to do anything."

Asked whether she would have published the research if the tobacco funding had been known, DeAngelis said: Absolutely not. I would have turned down the paper."

A spokeswoman for the New England Journal, which published the Henschke paper listing the Cornell foundation as a sponsor, one of about 30, said only that the journal was investigating the matter.

Smokers are in dire need of good science on the risk and benefits of lung scans, which are being marketed directly to the public in shopping centers and similar settings. About 1 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, and most will die because it is found too late for treatment to do much good.

Advanced X-rays called spiral CT scans have been touted as a way to find tumors earlier. But doctors fear that screening could lead to too many false alarms and unnecessary biopsies without saving lives. The cancer society does not currently recommend them, and most insurers don't pay for them.

Interest in the scans soared after Henschke published a key study in 1999 saying they found more tumors than conventional X-rays. Her ongoing study aims to prove the value of these scans but has been criticized because it lacks a comparison group.

The National Cancer Institute's study now under way has several comparison groups. It, too, has been criticized because two of its leaders were paid by tobacco companies as expert witnesses in lawsuits. Brawley says these were small amounts and one researcher gave the money back. Results of the federal study are expected in 2009 or 2010.

Laurie Fenton Ambrose, president of the patient advocacy group, the Lung Cancer Alliance, has complained about the government study conflicts, and says attacks on Henschke are "mudslinging."

"There is a difference between money that is provided independent of any tobacco control that would help fund research that would advance better patient outcomes and money that tobacco (companies) pay researchers for their testimony against screening in class action lawsuits," she said.

However, her group has taken industry money, too - from a maker of CT scanning equipment.

Niederhuber said the government "takes conflict of interest very seriously" and is committed to finishing its study with integrity.

An independent safety monitoring board is in place, and "investigators involved in the study do not have access to the data collected and cannot influence the data in any way that might affect the outcome of the trial," he added.

[jseymouriii]

What is the difference in the tobacco company is a conflict of interest and the cancer society is not. Who cares where the funding comes from. The findings were published for scrutiny. If it turns out as legitimate, then really it does not matter who funded it, it could become useful. If not then it still does not matter who funds it, there are a lot of useless studies every year funded by someone.

[honestabe8]

frigging pushers. and the government is addicted to the tax revenues that come from the sale of the cancer sticks. the public''s coffers are, therefore, financed by the public''s coughers. drug free america, my every growing arse.

[afmca]

This once again proves the HUGE lie of Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party. Their total belief in the morality of large American corporations. That they will police themselves and the market will control their immoral behavior. Modern American capitalism is sick and is a disease that is destroying the country that gave rise to it. Each and every executive of Big Tobacco should be brought up on murder charges as they continue to put profits over lives and profits over truth. There is NOTHING good about tobacco and it should be banned and the companies forced out of business. They lied to Americans for years, cooked up nicotine levels to keep you hooked, funded propaganda to hook children, and then sat back and watched people die. If they were brown skinned people from South America their product would be illegal. They even export their death to other countries. They are the worst sort of drug dealer. This is not a surprise, but there should be stiff penalties and laws against their propaganda.

[element51]

I do not trust ANYTHING connected with big tobacco. Those people are liars on a scale that cannot be measured. They are responsible for the deaths of millions all for the sake of a dollar. I watched those lying ba***** CEO''s of the major tobacco companies all stand up and flat lie to a congressional committee saying that they did not believe that tobacco was addictive. It is the most addictive substance on the face of the earth and they have known it for years. Now, they have a world market that for the most part is un-regulated and they will continue to kill. DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY. Don''t believe me?...Ask the Marlboro Man..Oh that''s right...he''s DEAD. Killed by tobacco.

[lloydbest1]

One more proof, if any were necessary, that studies are rarely commissioned to seek truth or obtain knowledge. The only thing studies reveal is the personal, economic or political biases of their sponsor(s).
What I have just said is a very broad, perhaps unfair, generalization of all products of the scientific method. Of course there are exceptions and progress across all scientific disciplines does occur. But it is essential to know who sponsors these things, where the funding comes from and who stands to gain from the results before any study is even worth reading, let alone taken seriously - regardless of its scholarship.

[excoachken]

No hidden agenda here, not much. I object to their objective not being objective.

[rowdytexan2]

Sounds to me like somebody''s jealous because they didn''t get a piece of the money, or any money.

It''s about the money!

This is really old news...we''ve been getting chest x-rays for years. If the new scans help even better...good! Until somebody disproves it helps, we''re moving in the right direction.

[tucano2]

Shocked! We''re shocked to find gambling at this establishment! (owner Vegas Casino)

[tucano2]

The "Research Community is Shocked..."?
Doesn''t this "community" know what the vast majority of the world has known for years and years? If this "community" is so stupid, naive, crooked, or all of the above why would this "community" think anyone with a brain is about to believe anything thie "community" has to say about anything at all? The FDA is ''owned'' by bigPharma. Other than cash payments to FDA and Senators/Congresspersons/Administration officials up and down the line from bigPharma, "studies" that are in any way ''negative'' are suppressed, "studies" that are somewhat positive are ''edited'' such that only positive comments survive for publication. Publications print anything paid for handsomely without much if any peer review. This is the situation in the USA. And, bigPharma buys enough influence to prohibit private importation for personal use of any medications from overseas. Thank you so much Mr. Cheney, and thank you so much, Mr. Shrub.

[consciousnes]

So what is the big revelation? This stuff has been going on for years and anyone with any sort of intelligence at all knew it was happening all along.
It is just like Big Oil, where do you think part of all those profits that the oil company (And it is one company, or at least the owners that get together, of all the oil companies "A Monopoly" that is dictating oil prices.) is going. They may not pay cash directly to our Congressmen or the President, but they are ALL benefiting from it otherwise some upstart Representative or Senator would be carrying on an investigation to break it up.
When CBS actually comes up with some news about this it will be refreshing, instead of rehashing common knowledge.