The Experts below are selected from a list of 6327 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Lisa Bero - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tobacco industry sponsorship of a book and conflict of interest
Addiction, 2006Co-Authors: Mikyung Hong, Lisa BeroAbstract:Aim The tobacco industry has hidden its involvement in the design, conduct and publication of scientific research articles and has used the articles to argue aGainst tobacco regulation. The objective of this study is to examine tobacco industry involvement in the development of scientific books. Design Qualitative analysis of previously secret internal tobacco industry documents retrieved from the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu). Information from the documents was supplemented with material from Internet searches, the National Center for Biotechnology Information Pubmed database and interviews with individuals involved in book publication. Findings Between 1997 and 1999 the tobacco industry sponsored a monograph, entitled ‘Analytical Determination of Nicotine and Related Compounds and their Metabolites’, that examined the measurement and metabolism of nicotine. The tobacco industry recruited Elsevier Science to publish the monograph. Tobacco industry executives, lawyers and scientists reviewed the chapters. One use of the monograph was to stimulate collaborative efforts between academic and tobacco industry scientists. Another was to provide the book to a government regulatory agency reviewing the teratogenic effects of nicotine. Conclusion Our findings show the breadth of tobacco industry engagement in scientific knowledge production and dissemination, and its motives for sponsoring scientific literature. The industry’s effort to Gain Credibility through collaboration with academic scientists raises questions regarding the ethics of accepting tobacco industry funding for publication. Scientists who collaborate on publications sponsored by the tobacco industry must consider the full implications of these joint efforts.
Scott J. Leischow - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
criteria for evaluating tobacco control research funding programs and their application to models that include financial support from the tobacco industry
Tobacco Control, 2009Co-Authors: Joanna E Cohen, Mitch Zeller, Robert Okeefe, Lynn C Planinac, Mark Parascandola, Thomas Eissenberg, Scott J. LeischowAbstract:Much has been discussed and written about the purposes, outcomes and ethics related to tobacco industry funding of research.1–9 The issue is controversial because of tobacco industry funding mechanisms that have been used by the tobacco industry to Gain Credibility and to advance the industry’s interests, which may come at the expense of public health;6 at the same time others have argued that, given the scarcity of funding from other sources, tobacco industry support may be defensible, at least under some circumstances.10 These concerns raise the question of whether there could be a model of tobacco company funding that would be acceptable to the tobacco control research community. This paper presents a set of criteria for evaluating funding models and applies them to four diverse models. While tobacco consumption and prevalence rates have declined in many developed countries over the past 40 years, the projections are that worldwide tobacco-related deaths will increase in the 21st century.11 Despite the disproportionate toll tobacco use takes, there remains only a modest investment in research to better understand tobacco products, tobacco product marketing, addiction, treatment and consumer behaviour. For example, in the USA, where tobacco causes almost 30% of all cancer deaths, only 2.3% of the National Cancer Institute’s 2003 budget was spent on tobacco-related research funding.12 This level of research investment is inadequate relative to the magnitude of the damage caused by tobacco use.13 14 At the same time, the tobacco industry has funded tobacco and health related research at universities. In the current context of limited funding, individuals and institutions may welcome additional sources of support. However the evidence is now clear that the tobacco industry participated in a long-standing conspiracy to defraud the public regarding the health risks of smoking. In 2006, the …
Mikyung Hong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tobacco industry sponsorship of a book and conflict of interest
Addiction, 2006Co-Authors: Mikyung Hong, Lisa BeroAbstract:Aim The tobacco industry has hidden its involvement in the design, conduct and publication of scientific research articles and has used the articles to argue aGainst tobacco regulation. The objective of this study is to examine tobacco industry involvement in the development of scientific books. Design Qualitative analysis of previously secret internal tobacco industry documents retrieved from the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu). Information from the documents was supplemented with material from Internet searches, the National Center for Biotechnology Information Pubmed database and interviews with individuals involved in book publication. Findings Between 1997 and 1999 the tobacco industry sponsored a monograph, entitled ‘Analytical Determination of Nicotine and Related Compounds and their Metabolites’, that examined the measurement and metabolism of nicotine. The tobacco industry recruited Elsevier Science to publish the monograph. Tobacco industry executives, lawyers and scientists reviewed the chapters. One use of the monograph was to stimulate collaborative efforts between academic and tobacco industry scientists. Another was to provide the book to a government regulatory agency reviewing the teratogenic effects of nicotine. Conclusion Our findings show the breadth of tobacco industry engagement in scientific knowledge production and dissemination, and its motives for sponsoring scientific literature. The industry’s effort to Gain Credibility through collaboration with academic scientists raises questions regarding the ethics of accepting tobacco industry funding for publication. Scientists who collaborate on publications sponsored by the tobacco industry must consider the full implications of these joint efforts.
Joanna E Cohen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
criteria for evaluating tobacco control research funding programs and their application to models that include financial support from the tobacco industry
Tobacco Control, 2009Co-Authors: Joanna E Cohen, Mitch Zeller, Robert Okeefe, Lynn C Planinac, Mark Parascandola, Thomas Eissenberg, Scott J. LeischowAbstract:Much has been discussed and written about the purposes, outcomes and ethics related to tobacco industry funding of research.1–9 The issue is controversial because of tobacco industry funding mechanisms that have been used by the tobacco industry to Gain Credibility and to advance the industry’s interests, which may come at the expense of public health;6 at the same time others have argued that, given the scarcity of funding from other sources, tobacco industry support may be defensible, at least under some circumstances.10 These concerns raise the question of whether there could be a model of tobacco company funding that would be acceptable to the tobacco control research community. This paper presents a set of criteria for evaluating funding models and applies them to four diverse models. While tobacco consumption and prevalence rates have declined in many developed countries over the past 40 years, the projections are that worldwide tobacco-related deaths will increase in the 21st century.11 Despite the disproportionate toll tobacco use takes, there remains only a modest investment in research to better understand tobacco products, tobacco product marketing, addiction, treatment and consumer behaviour. For example, in the USA, where tobacco causes almost 30% of all cancer deaths, only 2.3% of the National Cancer Institute’s 2003 budget was spent on tobacco-related research funding.12 This level of research investment is inadequate relative to the magnitude of the damage caused by tobacco use.13 14 At the same time, the tobacco industry has funded tobacco and health related research at universities. In the current context of limited funding, individuals and institutions may welcome additional sources of support. However the evidence is now clear that the tobacco industry participated in a long-standing conspiracy to defraud the public regarding the health risks of smoking. In 2006, the …
Ronald Macdonald - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Service of zbw Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre for Economics An Independent Scotland's Currency Options Redux: Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Currency Choice An Independent Scotland's Currency Options Redux: Assess
2020Co-Authors: Ronald MacdonaldAbstract:Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. This paper demonstrates that all of the currency options available to an independent Scotland come with the price tag of an austerity programme to the tune of £40bn. This is due to the need to accumulate foreign exchange reserves. So called Plan A -being part of a formal monetary union -comes with the added price tag of a 7% loss of competitiveness on average per annum. There will also be considerable volatility of competitiveness, similar to a separate currency. A formal sterling currency will end with a speculative attack and currency crisis which would costs Scotland alone anything in the region of £30bn to £200bn. The only currency option that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the costs of independence is that of a separate currency. All of the other options have none of the benefits but even greater costs than the separate currency option. However, this would also be a costly option in terms of the costs of redenomination and the need to build up an adequate stock of foreign exchange reserves. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may JEL-Code: F310, F320. Keywords: currency regimes, economics of Scottish independence. Ronald MacDonald Adam Smith Business School University of Glasgow G12 8RT Glasgow / Scotland Ronald.MacDonald@glasgow.ac.uk Media embargo until midnight 10 September 2014. A non--technical resume: • This paper demonstrates that all of the currency options available to an independent Scotland come with the price tag of an austerity programme. This is due to the need to accumulate foreign exchange reserves. • The only currency option that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the costs of independence is that of a separate currency. All of the other options have none of the benefits but even greater costs than the separate currency option. • The ball--park cost of setting up a separate currency, purely in terms of the foreign exchange reserves required, is a minimum £40bn. This is the sum of money similar sized Nordic countries --such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden --need to run a variety of different independent currency regimes, from a float to a fixed rate, and a managed float. • In this paper we demonstrate that an independent Scotland, even including oil revenues, will have a balance of payments deficit of between 2--5% on its current balance; that is around £6bn. An independent Scotland is also projected to have a budget deficit of 5% of GDP. • Taken together these so--called twin deficits indicate that to have a separate currency an independent Scotland would need to run a fiscal austerity programme in terms of having a budget surplus of 5% of GDP just to balance the external books. To gather in the sums of money needed to run and independent currency regime would require an even larger fiscal surplus, perhaps up to 10% of GDP. • The Belgium Luxemburg Economic Union (BLEU) is given as an example of how Plan A might work. However the BLEU does not remotely resemble the sterling zone monetary union, future or present. There were no less than three changes in the exchange rate relationship between Belgium and Luxemburg during its life, they ran a dual exchange rate system with separate exchange rates for current and capital account transactions and a raft of controls on capital and trade run through the banking sector. Neither of the countries was a net exporter of hydrocarbons. • The retention of a sterling monetary union post--independence --Plan A--will not work because it does not allow an independent Scotland to adjust to changes in competitiveness as a result of becoming a petro currency, post--independence. • Our calculations show that because of the petro--currency effect the competitiveness of Scotland's non--oil export sector will worsen by approximately 7% per annum. • This loss of competitiveness can only be addressed by a dramatic rise in productivity of around 7% or internal adjustment of wage cuts and a rise in unemployment much as what happened in Greece and Spain recently. • The competitiveness of firms trading in Scotland will be volatile and uncertain containing the same risks and costs as a separate currency with none of the benefits. • Since Plan A is now regarded as a transitory arrangement to an alternative currency regime, the government would need to accumulate the £40bn of foreign exchange reserves mentioned above, on top of wage cuts and unemployment. • Plan A is therefore a recipe for austerity +. Of course, such a policy would be extremely unpopular and the Scottish Government would be forced to abandon the fixed exchange rate relationship with rUK. • However, history shows that governments cling to fixed exchange rate relationships for too long when underlying competitiveness is changing and this eventually produces a classic currency crisis. • I estimate that a currency crisis would cost the Scottish taxpayer between £25bn to £35bn and could cost up to £100bn. If a banking crisis followed that could add a further £100bn. The cost to rUK will be much greater. Furthermore, a currency crisis would most likely lead to a further banking crisis which would dramatically increase these costs even further. • Adopting the pound informally -Sterlingisation is without doubt the worst possible currency option for an independent Scotland for a number of reasons. First, since sterling would be a foreign currency a reserve balance of at least £40bn would be needed just to smooth out balance of payments deficits and surpluses. Second, because it is a fixed rate system it could not address competiveness issues arising from the petro--currency effect. Third, to insure the sterling retail bank deposits held in Scotland would require a further accumulation of reserves of £120bn. Fourth, an independent Scotland would need to float its debt in sterling and need to acquire foreign exchange reserves to back this, another £6bn, or pay ruinously high interest rates in the absence of such backing. This would be austerity ++. • Adopting the Euro. The Euro zone is another form of one--size--fits all monetary policy, similar to the sterling zone, and would not be a suitable currency regime for an independent Scotland. Since Scotland would be a petro--currency it would suffer a loss of competiveness with respect to other Euro zone member that could not be addressed by a nominal exchange rate adjustments. So, much as in the recent Greek experience, competitiveness could only be maintained by wage / price cuts and higher than average unemployment -an austerity programme. Furthermore, since EU regulations require a country to have a separate currency and central bank before joining the euro an independent Scotland would have to build up the above noted pool of reserve. It is also unlikely to meet the relevant criteria for the government's fiscal position and total debt provision. • A separate currency is the only option that facilitates an appropriate macroeconomic policy for an independent Scotland. It would give the maximum flexibility in the operation of fiscal and monetary policy and it is the only option that financial markets would find credible. However, given the limited foreign exchange reserves an independent Scotland would inherit, a pure float would need to be run in the initial years of independence, generating considerable uncertainty and risk for trade and investment, although not markedly different to that in a formal monetary union. An austerity programme of budget surpluses would also be required to Gain Credibility with financial markets and to gather in the required £40bn of foreign exchange reserves to run a managed system. There will be continued turmoil in financial markets until this option is chosen and designed appropriately. Introduction. Many have been surprised at the prominence that the 'currency issue' has had in the recent Scottish referendum debate. The reason that currency has been so central is that it is much more than simply the notes and coins in our pockets that is at issue. It is about the whether the currency in circulation is backed by a central bank in a credible way and, critically, how our currency relates to other country's currencies in terms of the degree of fixity. If these important institutional feature of currency are not right then this can have devastating implications for employment output, inflation and a country's competitiveness
