The fossil fuel industry is responsible for so much harm to human health that it needs to be ostracised by respiratory medicine and banned from funding medical research, it is being argued.

The case has been made by respiratory physicians, who have compared certain tactics employed by the fossil fuel sector with the notorious campaign by cigarette manufacturers to suppress science on the health consequences of smoking and lobby against tobacco control.

When Big Tobacco’s strategies came to light, the specialty responded promptly, with groups including TSANZ banning membership and publications from anyone with ties to the tobacco industry.

But despite the parallels, no similar prohibition is in place for research linked to extractive energy companies, point out the authors of a recent viewpoint article on the topic.

“Climate change is no longer a political opinion but a scientifically proven reality, as are its effects on respiratory health, and the role of the fossil fuel industry in knowingly perpetrating them is undeniable,” they write in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (link here).

“A clear statement by respiratory societies of banning funding and demanding divestment from the fossil fuel industry will show commitment, generate attention, and ultimately serve our patients, our communities, our planet.”

The article stresses it remains unclear how much respiratory research is currently being influenced by fossil fuel cash, noting it is hard to assess whether individual respiratory researchers are being funded the sector directly or indirectly through industry foundations or think tanks.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that individuals are being funded and benefiting from investments in the fossil fuel industry, the authors say.

Recent examples include medical toxicologists working with a consulting firm with close ties to the gas stove industry who author peer-reviewed manuscripts and give public testimony, proclaiming the safety of gas stoves and discrediting their link to asthma as well as “emissiongate”, which entangled a number of high-profile scientists with an automotive conglomerate.

Beyond that, fossil fuel companies have donated or pledged over US $600 million to universities in the United States over recent years, the authors say.

To counter this influence, they propose:

• Individuals should have to report their previous ties to the fossil fuel industry, divest their investment portfolios, push for their employing institutions to refuse funding and to divest from fossil fuel enterprises, and disengage from all current ties with the industry.
• Institutions should pledge to stop all funding from the industry, divest their investments and regularly inform on their progress towards these goals.

“Considering the causal link between respiratory diseases and deaths with fossil fuel-driven climate change, it seems paramount to ensure that fossil fuel interests are not tainting research,” the authors add.

“Both the ERS and the ATS have already taken a strong stand on air quality, and we now suggest they take more practical steps towards this goal,” they note.

Examples of fossil fuel industry links to health and medical programs in Australia include coal industry funding for mobile health vans conducting respiratory testing and oil and gas giant Woodside Energy funding for the Telethon Kids Institute and Harry Perkins Institute in Western Australia.

Last year Dr Ken Withers, the team doctor for the Fremantle Doctors, called on the club to dump Woodside sponsorship.