208 � Public Health Chronicles
Public Health Reports / March–April 2005 / Volume 120
46. Dickersin K, Min Y-I, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two insti- tutional review boards. JAMA 1992;267:374-8.
47. Armitage AK. Environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease. J Smoking-Relat Dis 1993;4:27-36.
48. Bero LA, Glantz SA, Rennie D. Publication bias and and public health policy on environmental tobacco smoke. JAMA 1994;272: 133-6.
49. Misakian S, Bero L. Publication bias and research on passive smok- ing. JAMA 1998;280:250-3.
50. Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, main- taining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 1995;274:1935-8.
51. Hong MK, Bero LA. How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke. BMJ 2002;325:1413-6.
52. Slade J, Bero L, Hanauer P, Barnes D, Glantz S. Nicotine and addiction: the Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA 1995; 274:225-33.
53. Barnes D, Hanauer P, Slade J, Bero L, Glantz S. Environmental tobacco smoke: the Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA 1995;274:248-53.
54. Rennie D. Smoke and letters [editorial]. JAMA 1993;270:1742-3. 55. Raymond CA. Risk in the press: conflicting journalistic ideologies.
In: Nelkin D. The language of risk. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publi- cations; 1985. p. 87-132.
56. Kennedy G, Bero L. Print media coverage of research on passive smoking. Tob Control 1999;8:254-60.
57. Malone R, Boyd E, Bero L. Science in the news: journalists’ con- structions of passive smoking as a social problem. Soc Stud Sci 2001;30:713-35.
58. Roth AL, Dunsby J, Bero LA. Framing processes in public com- mentary on US federal tobacco control regulation. Soc Stud Sci 2003;33:7-44.
59. Bero LA, Montini T, Bryan-Jones K, Mangurian C. Science in regu- latory policy making: case studies in the development of workplace smoking restrictions. Tob Control 2001;10:329-36.
60. Bryan-Jones K, Bero L. Tobacco industry efforts to defeat the occu- pational safety and health administration indoor air quality rule. Am J Public Health 2003;93:585-92.
61. Jasanoff S. EPA’s regulation of daminozide: unscrambling the mes- sages of risk. Sci Technol Hum Values 1987;12:116-24.
62. Silbergeld E. Risk assessment: the perspective and experience of U.S. environmentalists. Environ Health Perspect 1993;101:100-4.
63. Wilson JQ. Bureaucracy: what government agencies do and why they do it. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1989.
64. Environmental Protection Agency (US). Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: lung cancer and other disorders. Washington: EPA, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment; 1992.
65. California Environmental Protection Agency. Health effects of ex- posure to environmental tobacco smoke. Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency; 1997.
66. Mangurian C, Bero L. Lessons learned from the tobacco industry’s efforts to prevent the passage of a workplace smoking regulation. Am J Public Health 2000;90:1926-30.
67. Hirayama T. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan. BMJ 1981;282:183-5.
68. Lee PN. “Marriage to a smoker” may not be a valid marker of exposure in studies relating environmental tobacco smoke to risk of lung cancer in Japanese non-smoking women. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1995;67:287-94.
69. Bekelman J, Li Y, Gross C. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:454-65.
70. Bero LA, Rennie D. Influences on the quality of published drug studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996;12:209-37.
71. Nestle M. Food politics: how the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2002.
72. Levine J, Gussow J, Hastings D, Eccher A. Authors’ financial rela- tionships with the food and beverage industry and their published positions on the fat substitute olestra. Am J Public Health 2003; 93:664-9.
73. Markowitz G, Rosner D. Deadly dust: silicosis and the politics of occupational disease in twentieth century America. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 1991.
74. Markowitz G, Rosner D. “Cater to the children”: the role of the lead industry in a public health tragedy, 1900–1955. Am J Public Health 2000;90:36-46.
75. Markowitz G, Rosner D. Deceit and denial: the deadly politics of industrial pollution. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2002.
76. Boyd E, Bero L. Assessing faculty financial relationships with indus- try. JAMA 2000;284:2209-38.
77. von Winterfeldt D. Expert knowledge and public values in risk management: the role of decision analysis. In: Krimsky S, Golding D, editors. Social theories of risk. Westport (CT): London; 1992. p. 321-42.
78. Cho M. Fundamental conflict of interest. BioMedNet Magazine 1998;24.
79. Krimsky S. Science in the private interest. Lanham (MD): Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2003.
80. Dana J. Harm avoidance and financial conflict of interest. Pitts- burgh: Carnegie Bosch Institute; 2003. p. 1-18.
81. Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the seques- tration thesis. J Med Ethics 2003:1-40 [cited 2004 Nov]. Available from: URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query .fcgi?cmd =Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=14872066
82. Shamoo AE, Resnik DB. Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
83. Boyd EA, Cho MK, Bero LA. Financial conflict-of-interest policies in clinical research: issues for clinical investigators. Acad Med 2003;78:769-74.
84. Herman R. Harvard School of Public Health faculty votes not to accept funds from the tobacco companies and subsidiaries [press release]. Boston: Harvard School of Public Health; 2002. p. 1-2.
85. Shield M. Policies and positions of other organizations on the funding controversy. TRDRP Newsletter. Burning Issues 2001;4:2-4.
86. Cohen J. Accepting tobacco funding for research: an overview of the issues. TRDRP Newsletter Burning Issues 2003;6:7-10.
