The UK government has announced a new £62 million research project into youth vaping, tracking 100,000 young people aged 8 to 18 over a decade. Funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the studies will be conducted by University College London (UCL) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSTHM). On the surface, a long-term study into adolescent health may seem beneficial. However, deeper scrutiny reveals a troubling agenda that appears more focused on manufacturing alarm than genuinely advancing public health.
Concerns Over Research Objectivity
It is particularly concerning that LSTHM is involved, given its association with Dr. Martin McKee, arguably Britain’s most vocal anti-vaping campaigner. His presence alone raises serious doubts about the objectivity of the research. As an ardent opponent of harm reduction strategies involving nicotine, many are concerned that such influence will lean towards predetermined and negative conclusions.
Criticism of UKRI's Funding Choices
Moreover, UKRI has been criticised for its funding choices. Christopher Snowdon, long-time commentator on public health grants, has noted that UKRI was originally created in 2018 to "push the frontiers of human knowledge and understanding" but has since become "yet another slush fund for activist-academics." It has a history of partnering with organisations that hold strong ideological biases against vaping, including the University of Bath, which has led aggressive campaigns against harm reduction businesses and advocates. With a seemingly ideologically driven team overseeing the project, the likelihood of a fair and balanced outcome seems remote.
What makes this study even more redundant is that the government has already conducted extensive research into vaping. Between them, Public Health England (PHE) and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) have completed six comprehensive reviews of vaping in England, culminating in OHID’s 2022 report. This final report analysed 1,468 pages of data from 413 research papers and concluded that "vaping poses only a small fraction of the risks of smoking."
Questioning the Need for New Research
Given this wealth of existing evidence, one must question why the government is investing an additional £62 million into another study. More importantly, it is curious that this research is being handed to entities with clear biases rather than OHID, the very agency designed to oversee such public health inquiries.
The government’s announcement perpetuates the misleading notion that "the long-term health impacts of youth vaping are not fully known," as if no studies have been conducted. This contradicts statements made by experts like Professor Ann McNeill, lead author of the OHID research, who has emphasized that there is already substantial evidence on vaping’s risks through biomarkers—intermediate indicators of harm used in many public health areas. As she stated, “You often hear people say we don’t know anything about the long-term health risks of vaping [but] it’s not true.”
McNeill has also pleaded for more accurate messaging about vaping: "The key aim should be smoke-free and let's not... make the perfect the enemy of the good by putting confusing messages around nicotine." Yet, the government’s latest announcement does exactly that - sowing confusion and fear where clarity is needed.
A cynic might argue that the reason for this new research, using known anti-vaping institutions, is to deliberately reach a conclusion that contradicts the existing evidence. Comments on a BBC Newsround article about the announcement illustrate how this messaging is being received—with undue fear and misinformation. Responses from young readers include statements like, "Vaping is really dangerous I have never vaped and I never will same with smoking they are both really bad," and, "I seriously think they should ban it for EVERYONE all together."
The timing of the announcement raises further suspicions. The government is simultaneously launching its first-ever "nationwide campaign to inform young people about the hidden health dangers of vaping." If the government truly believed it needed further research to understand these so-called dangers, it would surely make sense to wait for the study's results before launching a campaign. Instead, the goal seems to be to reinforce fears that have no solid scientific foundation.
Misinformation in Government Announcements
Government agencies already provide information about vaping risks to the public. For example, the NHS lists the dangers of vaping as "coughing, dry mouth and throat, mouth and throat irritation, shortness of breath, headaches," while also acknowledging that "nicotine is relatively harmless to health." If nicotine is indeed "relatively harmless," there is no need for an expensive, alarmist research campaign that will likely exaggerate risks.
Even statements made in the government’s own announcement contain misleading claims. Sarah Sleet, Chief Executive at Asthma + Lung UK, declared that "exposure to nicotine - also contained in vapes - can damage developing brains." This is a common myth with no substantial evidence. Former Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), Clive Bates, has dismissed this claim as "a scare story" and stated, "[t]he evidence for this hypothesis comes only from a few rodent studies. These are an unreliable guide to human risk because the rodent brain does not offer a reliable proxy for the human brain."
This relentless focus on youth vaping, at the expense of adult smokers who could benefit from switching to vaping, is damaging UK public health. Kenneth Warner, lead author and Professor Emeritus at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health, recently explained that vaping’s potential to increase smoking cessation has been "largely overshadowed by media coverage and policies that focus on the potential risk vaping represents for teens."
For every young person who vapes, there are around twenty adult smokers who could benefit from switching. Scare stories deter both groups, but they have a far greater impact on adult smokers who remain in the dark about the reduced risks of vaping. This has been highlighted to public health so often that the misinformation is starting to look deliberate.
A study published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research this month further emphasised the harm that is being caused. It found that "misperceptions of vaping harms are increasing; in England in 2024, 85% of adults who smoked inaccurately perceived that vaping is equally or more harmful than smoking or did not know the relative harms."
Conclusion: Ideology vs. Science
This government-funded research, which threatens to deliver obvious biases and flawed assumptions, seems poised to add to this misinformation. Instead of promoting evidence-based harm reduction, it appears designed to create fear and confusion - ultimately at the expense of public health. If the government truly cared about reducing smoking, it would not be undermining one of the most effective alternatives available. Unfortunately, this latest move suggests that ideology, not science, is driving the agenda.
Martin Cullip is International Fellow at The Taxpayers Protection Alliance's Consumer Center and is based in South London, UK.
