The UK public’s trust in tobacco industry involvement in science – an experimental survey
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22092990 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tess Legg (0000-0003-3157-048X, University of Bath, corresponding author), Lisa Bero (0000-0003-1893-6651, Colorado School of Public Health), Lewandowsky (0000-0003-1655-2013, The University of Western Australia) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Publication date | 2024-03-28 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Communication (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2297-900X • E-ISSN: 2297-900X |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1360277 |
| OpenAlex | W4393276356 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 35 |
Introduction Despite the tobacco industry’s (TI) decades-long history of manipulating science, Philip Morris International (PMI) now frames itself as a benevolent funder of science and, in 2017, launched a new scientific organisation, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW). With concerns mounting that PMI’s actions are echoing historical TI influence on science, we aimed to understand the extent to which the public trusts PMI’s involvement in science, and whether channelling funds through a third-party organisation affects these levels of trust. Methods Through a representative survey of the UK public (n=1580) we investigated trust in direct (PMI), indirect (FSFW), and no (Cancer Research UK) TI involvement in science. Conservative worldview was investigated as a possible predictor of trust. Structural equation modelling was used to explore associations between variables. Results Although PMI was significantly less trusted than FSFW and Cancer Research UK, the public did not completely distrust it as a scientific source. Trust in FSFW’s involvement in science was higher before participants understood its TI funding. People with conservative worldviews demonstrated greater trust in TI involvement in science. Discussion The UK public needs to be better informed that the TI is not a trustworthy scientific source. Since channelling TI research funds through a third party increases the perceived trustworthiness of its science, steps to prevent such relationships are warranted. People with conservative leanings hold concerning views on TI involvement in science, which may be particularly hard to correct
Political science · Public relations · Tobacco industry · Chemistry · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Environmental Education and Sustainability · Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology · Law
Overcoming skepticism with education
The vector of the tobacco epidemic
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis
Worldview-motivated rejection of science and the norms of science
To Know or Better Not to
Predictors of trust in the general science and climate science research of US federal agencies
The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change
Motivated Rejection of Science
Are industry-funded charities promoting “advocacy-led studies” or “evidence-based science”
Critical appraisal training increases understanding and confidence and enhances the use of evidence in diverse categories of learners
Conspiracist cognition
Philip Morris International-funded ‘Foundation for a Smoke-Free World’
Paying lip service to publication ethics
Document analysis of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World’s scientific outputs and activities
Inventing Conflicts of Interest
Whose Science Do You Believe? Explaining Trust in Sources of Scientific Information About the Environment
The case for motivated reasoning
Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |