 |
 |
THE "RYLANDER AFFAIR" - STATUS REPORT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR
PUBLIC HEALTH AND RESEARCH ETHICS IN
SWITZERLAND Diethelm
P. A. 1, Rielle J.-C. 2 1. OxyGenève,
Geneva, Switzerland - 2. CIPRET-Genève, Geneva,
Switzerland
In March 2001, two smoking-prevention
associations of Geneva (Switzerland), CIPRET-Genève and OxyGenève,
denounced in a press conference an infiltration of the University of
Geneva by the tobacco industry. The agent of the infiltration was a
reputed Swedish professor, whose main affiliation was with the University
of Gothenburg. His name: Ragnar Rylander. He had been secretly employed by
Philip Morris for 30 years. He was one of their most highly paid
consultants. He supervised the operations of INBIFO, the ultra-secret
biological laboratory of Philip Morris in Germany. For years, he received
research reports on the studies conducted at INBIFO, which demonstrated in
particular the high toxicity of side-stream smoke. He channeled the
reports to Philip Morris, at the private house of one of their executives,
where they would be read, acted upon and then destroyed. In spite of his
firsthand and exclusive knowledge about the acute toxicity of side-stream
smoke, not only Rylander has concealed it, but he has dedicated an
important part of his career denying that ETS is harmful. To that end, he
organized symposia on behalf of the tobacco industry and published studies
paid by Philip Morris without disclosing his source of funding and
concealing his conflict of interest. Following the revelations by
CIPRET-Genève and OxyGenève, Rylander has sued Jean-Charles Rielle, the
physician-in-charge of CIPRET and Pascal Diethelm, the president of
OxyGenève, accusing them of defamation. The trial that ensued has exposed
the affair to the public in its full dimension. It has unearthed more
evidence, all highly damaging for the tobacco industry. The trial has had
an extraordinary eye-opening effect in Switzerland on the practices of the
tobacco industry, among public health authorities, in the media and the
public at large. It has also offered academic research circles an example
of the need to introduce more rigorous ethical rules and be wary about
potential conflicts of interest. |
 |
 |