E-cig science is ever-evolving and on the cutting edge of technology development. But some don’t want to keep it that way. Is E-cig science plagued by scrutiny? You be the judge.
Ecigs have come a long way, but even after years on the market they are still widely misunderstood and unfairly judged. According to an article on The Guardian “e-cigarettes have really divided the public health community, with researchers who have the common aim of reducing the levels of smoking and smoking-related harm suddenly finding themselves on opposite sides of the debate.”
The media is heating up the disagreement on e-cigs. This puts the science and development under added scrutiny and causes unnecessary, widespread confusion. This paints “an unclear picture of what we know (and don’t know) about e-cigarettes is being portrayed, with vapers feeling persecuted and people who have not yet tried to quit mistakenly believing that there’s no point in switching…”
Necessary studies and research could be hindered and delayed because of the scrutiny on e-cigs, The Guardian article goes on to share, “an unexpected problem has been the unwillingness of some in the vaping community to help us recruit. And they’re put off because of fears that whatever we find, the results will be used to paint a negative picture of vaping, and vapers, by people with an agenda to push.”
The lack of willing participants to join in studies means fewer data to provide scientists with the most well-rounded view. The fear of participating because the information could be manipulated does not bode well for the other side of the aisle either. Having the clearest and most concise information will help everyone, and help close the gap in misunderstanding.
According to Reuters, “The products have also opened a rift between researchers who see their goal as eliminating nicotine in all its forms, and others who believe it makes more sense to reduce the harm of smoking.”
It doesn’t have to be this way. Science needs the information and participants to create the most detailed picture for development, for transparency within the industry and for consumers. Lawmakers should help push for fair and clean, untarnished studies to show the truth about e-cigs and vapes.
Last month, in an attempt to clear matters up, Bullen and other scientists in Britain and New Zealand published their assessment of the most impartial studies. Known as a Cochrane Review – a study of the best science on a subject – it aimed to see if e-cigs can help people stop smoking.
The review concluded that e-cigs may help smokers quit and that there is little sign that they hurt users.
So, as we can see there is a great benefit in unbiased, fair reviews of ecig science.
We have previously discussed E-cigs being plagued by fake news if politicians help or harm the future of vaping, and the biggest vaping myths—do you think the perception of e-cigs and vapes is suffering from undue scrutiny?
