Public Health Chronicles � 207
Public Health Reports / March–April 2005 / Volume 120
prohibitions are further supported by the tobacco industry’s motives for funding research: to distract from the issue of tobacco as a health problem, to gain credibility, and to use the research for public relations. purposes.86
Dr. Bero is with the Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, and Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco. Address correspondence to: Lisa A. Bero, PhD, Dept of Clinical Pharmacy, 3333 California St., Box 0613, San Francisco, CA 94143; tel. 415-476-1067; fax 415- 502-0792; e-mail <[email protected]>.
The author gratefully acknowledges her colleagues who collaborated on the studies cited in this article: Katherine Bryan- Jones, MS, Stanton Glantz, PhD, Miki Hong, MPH, Christina Mangurian, MD, Theresa Montini, PhD, and Marieka Schotland, BS. She also thanks Daniel Cook, PhD, Susan Dalton, PhD, Joshua Dunsby, PhD, Michael Givel, PhD, Anh Le, BS, Peggy Lopippero, MPH, David Rosner, PhD, and Theo Tsoukalis, PhD, for useful comments on drafts of the manuscript.
Preparation of this article was supported by grants from the American Cancer Society (RPG9714301PBP) and the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (6RT0025 and 9RT0193).
REFERENCES
1. Krimsky S. The role of theory in risk studies. In: Krimsky S, Gold- ing D, editors. Social theories of risk. Westport (CT): London; 1992. p. 3-22.
2. Nelkin D. The language of risk: conflicting perspectives on occu- pational health. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1985. p. 200.
3. Lowi T. The end of liberalism. New York: Norton; 1979. 4. Walker JL. Mobilizing interest groups in America. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press; 1991. 5. Truman D. The governmental process. Berkeley: Institute of Gov-
ernmental Studies Press; 1993. 6. Jasanoff SK. Is science socially constructed and can it still inform
public policy? Sci Eng Ethics 1996;2:263-76. 7. Wallack L, Dorfman L, Jernigan D, Themba M. Media advocacy
and public health: power for prevention. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications; 1993.
8. Jasanoff S. The technical discourse of government. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1995. p. 69-92.
9. Kingdon JW. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.; 1984.
10. Mazmanian D, Sabatier P. Implementation and public policy. Lanham (MD): University Press of America; 1989.
11. Sabatier PA. Toward better theories of the policy process. Political Sci Process 1991;147-56.
12. Stayner L. Protecting public health in the face of uncertain risks: the example of diesel exhaust. Am J Public Health 1999;89:991-3.
13. Ong EK, Glantz SA. Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms. Tob Control 2001;91:1-9.
14. Hirschhorn N, Bialous S. Second-hand smoke and risk assessment: what was in it for the tobacco industry? Tob Control 2001;10:375- 82.
15. Bialous S, Yach D. Whose standard is it, anyway? how the tobacco industry determines the International Organization for Standard- ization (ISO) standards for tobacco products. Tob Control 2001; 10:96-104.
16. Bero L. Implications of the tobacco industry documents for public health and policy. Annu Rev Public Health 2003;24:267-88.
17. Glantz S, Slade J, Bero L, Hanauer P. The cigarette papers. Berke- ley: University of California Press; 1996.
18. Roper Organization. A study of public attitudes towards cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry in 1978. Vol. 1. Roper Organiza- tion; 1978.
19. Barnoya J, Glantz S. The tobacco industry’s worldwide ETS consult- ants project: European and Asian components. Eur J Public Health. In press.
20. Chapman S. Tobacco industry memo reveals passive smoking strat- egy. BMJ 1997;314:1569.
21. Muggli ME, Forster JL, Hurt RD, Repace JL. The smoke you don’t see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke policies. Am J Public Health 2001;91:1419-23.
22. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical indus- try sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic re- view. BMJ 2003;326:1167-70.
23. Barnes D, Bero L. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 1998;279:1566- 70.
24. Barnes DE, Bero LA. Scientific quality of original research articles on environmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control 1997;6:19-26.
25. Malone RE, Bero LA. Chasing the dollar: why scientists should decline tobacco industry funding. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:546-8.
26. Bero L, Barnes D, Hanauer P, Slade J, Glantz S. Lawyer control of the tobacco industry’s external research program: the Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA 1995;274:241-7.
27. Hanauer P, Slade J, Barnes D, Bero L, Glantz S. Lawyer control of internal scientific research to protect against products liability law- suits: the Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA 1995; 274:234- 40.
28. Barnes D, Bero L. Industry-funded research and conflict of inter- est: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research. J Health Politics Policy Law 1996;21:515-42.
29. Center for Indoor Air Research. Request for applications: 1989– 1990 research agenda. Center for Indoor Air Research; 1989.
30. Center for Indoor Air Research. Center for Indoor Air Research 1992 research agenda and request for applications. Center for Indoor Air Research; 1992.
31. Tobacco Institute.
32. Turner S, Cyr S, Gross A. The measurement of environmental tobacco smoke in 585 office environments. Environ Int 1992;18:19- 28.
33. Hirschhorn N, Bialous SA, Shatenstein S. Philip Morris’ new scien- tific initiative: an analysis. Tob Control 2001;10:247-52.
34. Bero LA, Galbraith A, Rennie D. Sponsored symposia on environ- mental tobacco smoke. JAMA 1994;271:612-7.
35. Barnoya J, Glantz S. Tobacco industry success in preventing regula- tion of secondhand smoke in Latin America: the “Latin Project.” Tob Control 2002;11:305-14.
36. National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: mea- suring exposures and assessing health effects. Washington: Na- tional Academy Press; 1986.
37. Department of Health and Human Services (US). The health con- sequences of involuntary smoking: a report of the Surgeon Gen- eral. Washington: DHHS; 1986.
38. Schotland MS, Bero LA. Evaluating public commentary and scien- tific evidence submitted in the development of a risk assessment. Risk Anal 2002;22:131-40.
39. Chapman S, Borland R, Hill D, Owen N, Woodward S. Why the tobacco industry fears the passive smoking issue. Int J Health Serv 1990;20:417-27.
40. Bero LA, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry response to a risk assess- ment of environmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control 1993;2:103- 13.
41. RJR Reynolds Tobacco Company. Passive smoking: an active con- troversy [advertisement], circa 1993.
42. Rochon P. Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journals. JAMA 1994;272:108-13.
43. Cho MK, Bero LA. The quality of drug studies published in sympo- sium proceedings. Ann Int Med 1996;124:485-9.
44. Montini T, Bero LA. Policy makers’ perspectives on tobacco con- trol advocates’ roles in regulation development. Tob Control 2001; 10:218-24.
45. Montini T, Mangurian C, Bero LA. Assessing the evidence submit- ted in the development of a workplace smoking regulation: the case of Maryland. Public Health Rep 2002;117:291-8.
