Conflict of interest and the corruption of science in the anti-smoker industry were on parade in Australia last week when it was revealed that a report on environmental tobacco smoke was fiddled -- and that an anti-smoker lobbyist involved in the preparation of the report may have influenced its outcome.

An Australian news agency caught that country's main medical advisory group doctoring a report in order to cook up a case for smoking bans.

Seems that the Australian Associated Press got hold of documents which indicated that the report-writers, working under the august National Health and Medical Research Council, had deleted data which clearly did not support the report's recommendations for smoking bans in a whole host of publicly accessible places (Sydney, Australia AP, 04/20/97).

The news agency even obtained a copy of a "smoking gun" letter, in which one member of the report's working group, a Sydney University public health professor named Simon Chapman, complained that the data collected by the group didn't support the recommendations.

In a letter to colleagues working on the project, Chapman reportedly wrote:

"Journalists looking at that table (or being directed to it by the industry) will be hard pressed to write anything other than 'Official: passive smoking cleared -- no lung cancer.'"

"Much of your report recommends tightening restrictions on passive smoking ... surely with your calculations being so low, these recommendations are way over the top?"

By the time the draft report came out, the table Chapman was referring to had been deleted.

The Associated Press also notes that the report was suppressed by a federal court, which ruled that the National Health and Medical Research Council had not discharged its duty to conduct public consultation and had not given genuine consideration to submissions.

How does this sort of thing happen? Good old-fashioned conflict-of-interest seems to be the most likely explanation?

You see, Mr. Chapman is the head of an anti-smoking lobby group, according to the press report. One would think that his declared activism would rule him out from participating in what we can only assume was intended to be an objective and unbiased report.

Yet Mr. Chapman was permitted to sit on a body the purpose of which was to review the state of scientific evidence as it related to environmental tobacco smoke and illness and make recommendations for public policy.

All sorts of questions arise. Why was someone with a clear and obvious vested interest in the outcome of the report allowed to be part of its preparation in the first place? Is Mr. Chapman paid for his position as head of the lobby group? How much is he paid and by whom?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that if you are a prominent lobbyist and you want to remain in the position, you need to demonstrate that you can be effective in getting things done that support your agenda.

Put plainly, the Australian report on environmental tobacco smoke seems to have been a case of letting the fox into the henhouse. The rights of smokers -- and public confidence in the scientific community -- were the casualties in this case.