Interview: “The University of Zurich has an ethical obligation to retract these two articles”

Interview with Bertrand Kiefer, former editor-in-chief of the Swiss Medical Journal, on the subject of the Philip Morris-University of Zurich affair.

The revelation of the hidden annex to the contract between Philip Morris and the University of Zurich now confirms that the study funded by the cigarette manufacturer violated the principles of scientific research. What is it being accused of?

Bertrand Kiefer (BK): The first point concerns good scientific practice, which was violated by this study. Independent researchers have shown that the statistical methods used were inadequate and that the negative result was statistically predictable, in other words, known in advance.

Another important aspect concerns the transparency of the research project, which was not respected. In fact, most of the project description was hidden in an appendix to the contract, which is an unethical practice.

The third important point concerns Philip Morris’ interference in the research process, which is clearly evident in the contract appendix. The tobacco company had extensive control over the process and could modify it to serve its own interests. This also represents a clear breach of scientific integrity.

How does the partnership between the University of Zurich and Philip Morris go against the university’s core values and the integrity rules set by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences?

BK: Point 2.2 of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences’ report on scientific integrity—in its 2008 version, which predates this research—states that the scientific community must be able to make critical judgments and engage in ethical reflection on the projects and results in question. This was not the case in this study due to the unavailability of the documents necessary to make such a critical assessment. But also because the results were never submitted for peer review, but simply posted on the University of Zurich website.

The Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences also emphasize the importance of researcher independence. This principle was not respected in this study. When industry funds research, there is a significant risk of bias in the results. This phenomenon is almost always observed in the tobacco industry: virtually no studies funded by the industry present results that are contrary to its interests. In this particular case, the industry’s interest was global: the Zurich study was used to counter the introduction of plain packaging in Australia and several other countries that were considering this measure. The delay in implementing, or even the prevention, on spurious grounds, of this anti-smoking measure has had huge consequences in terms of public health, serious illness, and premature death. This is really not insignificant.

What should the University of Zurich’s response be today?

BK: Now that it has been made public that the study funded by Philip Morris violated the rules of scientific integrity, the University of Zurich has an ethical obligation to retract the two articles published on its website. It also has a duty to make a public statement announcing this retraction and acknowledging its failure to fulfill its responsibilities. This is a genuine moral obligation for the institution.