Abstract
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.
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 1360277 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Frontiers in Communication |
| Volume | 9 |
| Early online date | 28 Mar 2024 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 28 Mar 2024 |
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. TL’s time spent on this research was supported by the South West Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTP) and by Bloomberg Philanthropies’ STOP project funding (www.bloomberg.org). The survey was funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies’ STOP project funding (www.bloomberg.org). The opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Keywords
- agnogenesis
- disinformation
- ethics
- science
- tobacco industry
- trust
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Communication
- Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
