c. Movement to a lower level of overall nicotine addiction.

Thus, not only is hiding conflicts of interest an ethical violation, but it is potentially damaging as well. Once researchers in a field are viewed by the public as hiding relationships, the reputation of the entire field may be tarnished. Just look at what happened to the field of global climate change after it was revealed that merely one of hundreds of researchers in the field may have been biased in his approach.

Neither the survey approach or the RCT approach is perfect. Both have major strengths and significant limitations. The best way to proceed is to conduct both types of studies and to synthesize the results across study designs, keeping in mind the methodological strengths and limitations of each individual study. Only by looking at this totality of the evidence can we draw valid scientific conclusions.

Another anti-smoking group, responding via email, told me that: "This is precisely how the tobacco industry has influenced the reporting of science. By funding research at universities and engaging professors and researchers as consultants, the industry introduced a bias that influenced these scientist's conduct and reporting of their subsequent research. While the financial relationships may have ended in the light of the public's disdain for the tobacco industry and the public revelations that came out of the DOJ lawsuit, these biases do not just disappear overnight. It is irresponsible and unethical for these researchers to hide their past financial relationships with Big Tobacco, even if the money changed hands more than 36 months ago."

LAST：kanger coil |NEXT：kanger aerotank glass