A Norwegian scientist has been reported for research misconduct and misleading communication of results. This is after he published a study claiming that snus increases the risk of throat cancer.
"The risk of esophageal cancer increases for those who use snus. But this only applies to one type of esophageal cancer, where the risk is already very low. The risk of esophageal cancer has not increased overall," says former senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Erik Nord, who has now reported a researcher at his old workplace to the Norwegian Research Ethics Board
The media headlines in Norway were dramatic after the Norwegian Institute of Public Health published a report on snus use and risks. Snus is widely used in Norway and has been highlighted in other reports as the most common method to quit smoking in the country. At the same time, researchers at the National Institute of Public Health disagree applicable riskthe people with snus. Now the conflict has resulted in a complaint to the Ethics Committee for Research.
"Still very low risk"
The research in question showed that the risk of esophageal cancer increases from 0.016% to 0.055% for snus users compared to non-users. The researcher behind the study, Bendik Brinchmann, then communicated the message that "the risk of getting esophageal cancer is tripled for snus users". This of course made headlines. But according to senior researcher Erik Nordwho is now retired after 33 years at the National Institute of Public Health, the message is downright misleading.
- The fact that the risk of esophageal cancer has more than tripled is a misleading headline. What we are really talking about is a cancer that is very rare. And when the risk is so very low, very few people need to worry. For example, if the risk is already as low as 0.2% and it increases to 0.4%, the overall risk is still very low. But the presentation of the research is, all in all, very scary," Erik Nord told the online newspaper Nettavisen.
Shortcomings in old studies
According to Erik Nord, the study is also based on, in some cases, really old research results. These are studies conducted in Sweden in the 1970s and 80s. A lot has happened to snus as a product since then, he says.
"This is also a study with a number of methodological weaknesses that need to be taken into account when communicating the results. This has not been done. The data in the study is about snus use in Sweden in the 1980s. At that time, snus was more dangerous than the snus that is commonly used in Norway now. It is therefore not possible to assume that the data actually say anything about the risks of snus use today. This must be made clear in the communication," says Erik Nord.
He also says that the Swedish studies did not take into account other factors in snus users that may increase the risk of various types of throat and pancreatic cancer. Alcohol is a known risk factor - but the studies did not take this into account,
Resistance from some researchers
Snus is a sensitive issue in Norway, as in Sweden. It is an addictive product manufactured and sold by tobacco companies, although the harm risks of snus are considered to be significantly lower than those caused by smoking. At the same time, it is a popular way to use nicotine in several Nordic countries. In Sweden and Norway, snus is more popular than smoking. According to the studies regularly published by the NIPH, the increasing use of snus has simultaneously reduced the proportion of smokers in the country. This is also true among young people - where smoking is about to disappear completely, as snus use increases.
"But for many years there have been people working at the National Institute of Public Health who have been opposed to snus as a product," says Erik Nord. "They cling to the idea that tobacco is always harmful. They have therefore chosen to take a very one-sided view of the research results. This leads to exaggerations and biased conclusions"
More policy than research
At the same time, Erik Nord points out that most researchers at the government institute do what they are supposed to do: that is, remain objective about the facts. But since snus has also become a matter of legislation and policy, as much as health for individuals, it is easy to get it wrong when some researchers end up in the spotlight, he says.
"It becomes more politics than serious research. The communication itself in this case clearly appears as a kind of activism. But it is disguised as authoritative research," Erik Nord told Norwegian TV2.
Misleading messages
Erik Nord now wants the Norwegian Ethics Committee to take a closer look at the research and how the results were presented. He believes that his old workplace, the National Institute of Public Health, should also get a slap in the face.
"It's individuals who make mistakes, but I think management should consider whether they have built a good enough culture around research to avoid something like this happening. When this happens, it is actually the management that is responsible for what then becomes advisory texts on the website. It must not say things that are misleading, as in this case. There has been a breach.
The criticism from Erik Nord has now been submitted to the Joint Ethics Committee, a body run jointly by several research institutes in Norway. Neither the accused researcher nor the investigator at the Ethics Committee has chosen to comment during the ongoing investigation.
