© Pla2na / Shutterstock.com

Ban fossil industry funding in medical research

By: Ebba Malmqvist

Leading experts are asking medical researchers to ban financial interference between research individuals and institutions and the fossil fuel industry.

A study on this topic has found that fossil-funded centres are more favourable in their reports towards natural gas than renewable energy, while centres less dependent on fossil funding show the reverse pattern, with a more neutral attitude towards gas, instead favouring solar and hydro power. Individual examples include: medical toxicologists working with a consulting firm with close ties to the gas stove industry who author peer-reviewed manuscripts and give public testimony proclaiming the safety of gas stoves and discrediting their link to asthma; esteemed scientists, members of official scientific committees, conducting controversial medical studies designed by car manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of diesel exhaust as part of a marketing strategy to cheat on diesel pollution (“diesel-gate”). Moreover, fossil fuel companies donated or pledged over 600,000,000 US dollars to 27 universities in the United States alone aiming to shift their focus towards industry-friendly solutions such as carbon capture or biomass fuels which may contribute to the well-documented “funding effect” affecting scientists working on the health impacts of climate change. To close the circle, universities and institutions often invest financially in fossil fuel companies, making their interests in the survival of this industry less than theoretical.

When the detrimental role of tobacco on health became known, scientific societies actively worked to avoid undue industry influence on research into these subjects. A carefully planned marketing strategy by cigarette manufacturers included spreading doubt about scientific evidence and employing scientists to publicly deny any harmful effects. When these strategies came to light, respiratory societies responded promptly: the European Respiratory Society (ERS) banned membership and publications from those who had “been full, or part-time, employees of, or paid consultants to, or those with any real or perceived, direct or indirect links to the tobacco industry” and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) banned any research funded by tobacco entities from its journals and conferences and any persons with ties to tobacco manufacturing from any role in the society or its activities. These restrictions have recently been tightened and reaffirmed. Recent evidence showed that the fossil fuel industry has implemented the same techniques as the tobacco industry. Considering the causal link between respiratory disease/mortality and fossil fuel-driven climate change, it seems paramount to ensure that fossil fuel interests are not tainting research. The authors propose actions at various levels:

  • Individuals should have to report their previous ties to the fossil fuel industry, divest their investment portfolios, push for their employing institutions to refuse funding and to divest from fossil fuel enterprises, and disengage from all current ties with the industry.
  • Institutions should pledge to stop all funding from the industry, divest their investments and regularly inform of their progress towards these goals.
  • Respiratory societies should ban fossil fuel industry-derived funding and profit, as is the case with the tobacco industry, by forbidding publication by fossil fuel industry-funded individuals and institutions and supporting divestment.

Ebba Malmqvist

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 5 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202308-1410VP

Nature Climate Change 10 November 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01521-3

 

In this issue