The Heavy Cost of Canceled Science

Two pieces of news struck me late last month: Authorities in Spain attempted to cancel a tobacco harm reduction summit scheduled to take place at the University of Madrid, and anti-tobacco organizations pressured the Turkish government to reject a €1.8 million donation for earthquake relief. Why rebuff much-needed humanitarian aid? For no reason other than that the donation was to come from Philip Morris International (PMI).

When I joined PMI five years ago, I knew helping the organization transition to a smoke-free future would be challenging. What I didn’t anticipate was the extent of the organized effort to freeze out the company and its industry from civil society. Even as my colleagues dedicate themselves to ending cigarettes as rapidly as possible—which you would think everyone would agree is a good thing—they and other tobacco harm reduction advocates have met with unyielding resistance, including being excluded from critical roundtables, conferences, and other events. We have been, in effect, canceled.

I’m all too aware that cancellation is a loaded term and one too often misapplied. Still, what else would you call it when a company is prevented from participating in essential conversations and events? When an organization is not even permitted to do good works because a powerful few regard its money as tainted? Making this especially nonsensical is the fact that PMI is inexorably on a path to better, moving ever closer to the day when it will stop manufacturing and selling its legacy product, cigarettes.

A year ago, an editorial in the New York Times cautioned about the dangers of healthy debate being silenced. Especially alarming, in my view, are the effects on scholarship. Several high-profile cancellations of lectures by senior academics have led some to question whether a concern for social justice might be exerting a chilling effect on the exchange of scientific ideas. Given that “heresy” and the advancement of unpopular views is often the very thing that spurs scientific progress, that’s a potentially perilous problem. Consider this: Within a few hours of PMI’s purchase of an inhalation technology firm in 2021, the firm’s scientists were disinvited from sponsoring or even participating in a scientific conference—a conference focused on their area of specialization. Why? A small group of highly vocal academics had threatened to withdraw from the event unless these industry professionals were banned due to their affiliation with PMI.

Expulsions of this nature are happening with disturbing frequency. In an interview last fall, our VP of Strategic and Scientific Communications, Dr. Moira Gilchrist, pointed out that a decade ago, when 100 percent of PMI’s revenues came from cigarettes, representatives from public health would sit at a table with her and hold productive conversations. “Fast forward to 2022, and I find myself excluded.” How can one make sense of that shift when around a third of PMI’s net revenues now come from better, smoke-free alternatives and the company is working to eliminate cigarettes entirely?

The chilling effects of this kind of cancellation go far beyond the interests of those ejected. Young scientists or those starting out in their careers might think twice about training their microscopes on an orthodoxy-upending subject or self-censure what they put in their papers or discuss in professional circles. Being forced to deal with a Twitter pile-on when you’re busy with your work and keen to get ahead is a risk many will not wish to take. In this unforgiving atmosphere, certain hypotheses may not be advanced because their authors fear falling victim to a braying mob. It’s a recipe for timidity rather than for the robust exchange of possibilities in which good science thrives.

Lest we forget, modern science is a relatively young discipline—only five centuries old. Even in an open marketplace of ideas, it tends to advance at a snail’s pace, with good science eventually winning out over the faulty in an atmosphere of rigorous scrutiny and skepticism. By allowing forces of exclusion and bias to determine who is permitted to participate in conversations, we risk the very integrity of scientific knowledge. The result will be blind spots, ill-informed decisions, and missed opportunities to improve people’s lives. And isn’t improving life what the field of science is all about??