E-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than traditional cigarettes.
Many independent studies show this. But tobacco companies have also funded a large number of studies showing the same, although these are often viewed with skepticism.
The replication project was set up to replicate and validate previous studies on smoke, vapor and its physical effects. It focuses on replicating studies previously conducted by tobacco companies.
The Replica project operates as a network of research laboratories across the world - both within academia and in the context of different institutions. Since 2019, the team has been conducting multidisciplinary studies comparing the latest generation of alternative products, such as e-cigarettes and tobacco heating systems, with traditional tobacco cigarettes. The aim is to replicate and validate results from previously conducted studies but in different, independent laboratories.
Reasons to question the results
The researchers behind the Replica project say that the studies are particularly relevant in light of what is known in science as the 'reproducibility crisis'. Some research results simply cannot be replicated or reproduced by other researchers, which calls into question the credibility of the results presented.
"Since many studies are also commissioned by large companies, there is reason to question both objectivity and results." The researchers behind the project state.
Evidence for regulation
The Replica project brings together researchers from seven different countries and laboratories to replicate and evaluate the results of previous studies. This includes studies from the research and development departments of tobacco companies. The aim is to ensure that the results are reliable and can be used as a basis for evidence-based discussion and possible regulation of tobacco products and what they loosely call 'electronic nicotine delivery systems', or e-cigarettes.
Research by individual tobacco companies
In a variety of projects, the Replica team has validated previous research. In a recently published study, the project replicated a study by the tobacco company Imperial Brands. The 2020 study showed that e-cigarette aerosol, i.e. small particles finely dispersed in a gas, has minimal or no cytotoxic, mutagenic and genotoxic effects compared to cigarette smoke. As in the original results, it was found that cigarette smoke caused great damage to the cells, while e-cigarette aerosols had little or no harmful effects.
Less or no damage to lung cells
Although the two studies had some differences in the way they were carried out, the results supported those previously presented by Imperial brands. For example, the Replica project deliberately used different brands of cigarettes and different devices to generate smoke and aerosols, to see if they got the same results.
The team used three standard tests to assess the hazardousness of the product: the NRU test to see how toxic the smoke was, the Ames test to check whether it affected the genetics of the cells, and the in vitro micronucleus test to measure any genetic damage. The results clearly showed that the e-cigarette aerosol was less dangerous to the cells, while the cigarette smoke had high cytotoxicity, mutagenicity and genotoxicity.
Want to check more studies
The Replica team and the Coehar Institute hope that the new findings will have a significant impact on the regulation and communication of e-cigarettes. They believe the results strengthen the thesis that vejpning is a less dangerous alternative for tobacco users. "
Continued research and independent replication of studies such as this are essential to make informed regulatory decisions and promote public health." Writes the publication.
Getting money from tobacco companies
The Replica Project is part of the Coehar Institute ("The Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction") at the University of Catania in Italy. The Institute receives part of its funding through "Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW). The FSFW is a seemingly independent scientific organization with the aim of "accelerating the end of smoking". At the same time, the foundation itself is fully funded by Philip Morris International (PMI).
Red's note: Research that is essentially funded by a commissioning company does not necessarily mean that the studies are less robust, or that active researchers are less serious. Vejpkollen believes, however, that all reporting on research should be based on transparency about the financing of research and the sender's any preconditions.
