Supping with the devil

A tobacco researcher's credibility is going up in smoke. Prof Marewa Glover is a specialist in "smoking cessation'', and her views run counter to the opinions of others in this field.

Being in the minority is not wrong in itself. Conventional wisdom often needs challenging. We need rebels challenging the establishment's shibboleths.

In 2018, for example, Prof Glover argued against further rises in tobacco taxes. She used to support the increases, but the evidence had shown they did not work, she said. About 45% of Maori women between 18 and 24 smoked, and that proportion was not reducing. Support for abandoning the next of the regular tax hikes, due next year, has gained ground.

Prof Glover also backs vaping as a way to break the cigarette habit. That is another controversial position, in part because the harm from vaping - while thought to be much less than from tobacco smoking - is still unknown.

On a third issue, however, Prof Glover left fellow tobacco researchers and MPs aghast. She told the Health Select Committee at Parliament last Wednesday that a Bill to ban smoking in cars was discriminatory to Maori. She said bodies would heal from exposure to secondhand smoke and time spent in cars was "fleeting''.

She also said that in tobacco control over 35 years, the effects had been deliberately exaggerated to scare people off smoking.

What caused consternation were not just the views of the Kiwibank New Zealander of the Year finalist but funding for her Centre for Research Excellence: Indigenous Sovereignty and Smoking. According to RNZ, it received $1.5million from the Foundation for a Smokefree World since 2018. The foundation is funded by tobacco giant Philip Morris International (PMI).

The Foundation was described last week by University of Otago academic Prof George Thomson as "a sophisticated effort to obscure PMI's actual intentions, to confuse policy-makers and health sectors and increase industry legitimacy.''

Taking tobacco industry money meant the receiver thought they were either smarter than the industry or smarter than the World Health Organisation, he said.

Prof Glover has vigorously defended her foundation grant, saying she was open about the source and had done due diligence on the foundation. Her opponents viewed her as an "ideological competitor''. Times had changed and her critics kept pushing the same punitive measures.

Putting aside Big Tobacco's interests in vaping and the fact other opinions of Prof Glover seem to align more with the industry than the critics, she is in an invidious position. By accepting tobacco money, she is, in effect, supping with the devil.

As soon as researchers receive money from affected parties, they and the outcome of their work are compromised. They cannot be seen as truly independent.

Not only is there the perception of a conflict of interest, but other influences apply. Humans are far from objective no matter how hard they try, and scientists have developed the "scientific method'' and the likes of blind trials to try to minimise their potential biases.

Prof Glover is correct that passionate advocates - like politicians - are sometimes prone to exaggerate in the interests of their causes. But given the confined space in cars, the immature lungs of small children and the normalising of the smell of smoking, this is not so in this instance.

The possible $50 fines would, indeed, affect Maori, Pasifika and the poor disproportionately. But so, too, would the benefits.

Children's Commissioner Andrew Becroft sees the ban as having a positive impact on the lives of Maori with great health benefits. Prominent Maori have also supported the change.

Some of Prof Glover's other perspectives should not be dismissed per se. But, by accepting tobacco industry funding, she has undermined her credibility.