Editorial Note
The European Journal of Public Health 2006 16(3):233
In 1999, this journal published a paper by Professor Rylander et al.,1
from the University of Gothenburg, on the characteristics of
non-smoking females living with smoking males. In the letter
accompanying this submission, Professor Rylander stated that 'No part
of the research presented has been funded by sources that might lead to
a conflict of interest'. We now know that this statement was untrue and
that it had been funded by an organization that itself was financed
almost exclusively by tobacco companies. These events have been
catalogued previously in this journal and elsewhere,2-4 and we now have
a much better understanding of the complex and wide-ranging nature of
Professor Rylander's involvement with the tobacco industry.5
We have now received the report of an investigation into Professor
Rylander's actions, conducted by the University of Geneva, where he
undertook some of his work ( 
http://www.prevention.ch/rye060904.pdf
). The University has requested that we, and other journals that have
published some of his papers, should print the following statement:
Based on the extensive evidence that has come to light in the aftermath
of lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers in the US, Prof. Rylander
cannot be considered to be an independent researcher as regards tobacco
issues because of his longstanding and largely secret links with the
tobacco industry. Many items of correspondence between Prof. Rylander
and Philip Morris scientists, as well as lawyers representing the
tobacco industry, show that Prof. Rylander hardly took any initiative
in the tobacco area without extensive consultation with industry. Prof.
Rylander's epidemiological studies on the effects of environmental
tobacco smoke followed industry's leads and were meant to support a
sceptical message on the effects of passive smoke, in line with an
industry-defined strategy.
In his following capacities, Prof, Rylander's work reflects his
position as an industry agent rather than as a free scientist:
- provider of expert advice on second-hand smoke, in particular to the
US Environmental Protection Agency;
- organiser of scientific meetings on second-hand smoking;
- agent of influence towards the University of Hong-Kong, where he
tried to lobby for the promotion of another scientist linked to
cigarette manufacturers, in an attempt to provide the tobacco industry
with an academic platform in Asia.
Prof. Rylander's work on the effects of environmental tobacco smoke
raises severe suspicions since the author hid relevant conflict of
interest and cannot be considered an independent scientist. Finally, it
must be noted that the inquiry was not concerned about Prof. Rylander's
opinions on secondhand smoking qua opinions. Rather, it concluded that
Prof. Rylander was guilty of scientific misconduct in hiding the real
extent of his links with the tobacco industry and in aligning his
activity as a scientific investigator and expert with the strategic
objectives of his industrial sponsors. For the University of Geneva
(through the Rector André Hurst), this represents a serious
breach of
the integrity that the scientific community and the public can and do
expect of a university scientist.
References
1 Rylander R, Axelsson G, Mégevand Y, et al. Dietary habits for
non-smoking females living with smokers or non-smokers. Eur J Public
Health 1999;9:142-5.
2 McKee M. Smoke and mirrors: clearing the air to expose the tactics of
the tobacco industry. Eur J Public Health 2000;10:161-3.
3 McKee M. Competing interests: the importance of transparency. Eur J
Public Health 2003;13:193-4.
4 Malka S, Gregori M. Infiltration: Une taupe au service de Philip
Morris. Geneva: Editions Georg, 2005.
5 Diethelm PA, Rielle J-C, McKee M. The whole truth and nothing but the
truth? The research that Philip Morris did not want you to see. Lancet
2005;366:86-92.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/[...]ent/extract/16/3/233