The 13th World Conference on Tobacco OR Health

Objective: Academic institutions are concerned that banning funding from one source, such as the tobacco industry, could lead to restricting funding from other sources – a “slippery slope” in an era when academia is increasingly dependent on corporate funding. One argument in favor of banning tobacco industry funding for research is that it is a uniquely immoral industry, responsible for the only commercial product that kills when used as intended.

Methods: We address the question of whether the tobacco industry differs from others by comparing the methods that four different industries – tobacco, silica, lead, and vinyl chloride – have used to justify corporate transgressions in ethical behavior. We apply Albert Bandura's framework for “moral disengagement mechanisms” to internal documents from these four industries to examine how industry lawyers, executives, scientists and other employees justified their actions regarding the design, conduct and dissemination of research. Data sources include tobacco industry documents from the Legacy/UCSF Tobacco Documents Library; and internal industry documents released to an expert witness in lawsuits against the silica, lead and vinyl chloride industries.

Results: Scientists, executives, lawyers and public relations experts in all four industries used moral disengagement mechanisms to justify unethical behavior. Mechanisms have included moral justification, euphemistic labeling, displacement or diffusion of responsibility, and distorting consequences. Industry characteristics, type of profession, and regulatory environment appear to support or hinder the use of these mechanisms in the four industries. Regulatory environment and structural characteristics might be modified to promote more ethical behavior.