Scientific facts against bans. What was discussed at Technovation in Tashkent?

**Scientific Facts vs. Bans: What Was Discussed at Technovation in Tashkent?**

How to evaluate innovative products, what scientific data is needed to determine their risks, and how to regulate them — these questions were discussed by doctors, scientists, government officials, and business representatives at the international Technovation conference in Tashkent. Participants spoke about why it is important to rely on scientific evidence when developing rules.

The conference took place in Uzbekistan for the first time on September 30 at the JW Marriott in Tashkent. Organized by Philip Morris International (PMI), the event was previously held in Astana, Dubai, Cape Town, Stockholm, and Washington, D.C.

The discussion involved government officials, experts, doctors from Uzbekistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan, as well as business representatives.

## Where the Line Is Drawn Between Business and the State

The main theme of the conference was the conditions necessary for the emergence and development of new products and technologies.

The general conclusion of the participants can be summarized in one word — predictability.

According to Marco Mariotti, President of PMI for South Asia, Indochina, and CIS countries, it is predictability, along with the rule of law and stability, that are key factors sought by international investors.

"Every time I return to Uzbekistan, I am impressed by the speed of changes taking place here. Over the past decade, few countries have undergone such decisive transformations. Investors look for the rule of law, predictability, stability, an educated workforce, and an ecosystem that helps innovation. And Uzbekistan today fully meets their expectations," Mariotti stated.

Explaining why Uzbekistan became the venue for Technovation, Mariotti said that PMI wants to share the experience of its business transformation with different countries and companies.

"We consider it our responsibility to contribute to the country's development. We are here not only to do business — we have an obligation to help the country in every way we can," he noted.

According to Mariotti, countries around the world recognize the growing role of Central Asia and are investing in the region — not only Western countries, but Asian investors as well. In his estimation, Uzbekistan is moving toward Vision 2030 and taking advantage of opportunities for rapid economic growth.

Akram Aliev, Deputy Minister of Investment, Industry and Trade of Uzbekistan, noted that the result of innovation should be evaluated not only from an economic point of view, but also by its contribution to public health. According to him, the ministry is ready to support projects at various stages of their implementation.

Alfiya Musina, Executive Director of the UzBev Association and moderator of the first session on investments, which featured representatives from the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, EPAM, Coca-Cola, Yashil Energy, and PMI, noted that the success of projects depends on the readiness of companies for long-term work and clear business conditions. Nodirjon Nasretdinov, General Manager of Yashil Energy, spoke about renewable energy as a tool for business development and improving energy efficiency. He emphasized that tangible results and partner education help implement new solutions.

Kazumasa Mukae, General Manager of Coca-Cola in Uzbekistan, spoke about innovations in a category familiar to consumers: low-sugar beverages, new packaging, and sustainable development. Renat Akhtyamov, Head of EPAM Uzbekistan, spoke about the growing impact of artificial intelligence on business. All companies, including EPAM, have to adapt to these changes, while new technologies are transforming the working environment and traditional approaches to work.

Shakhlo Turdikulova, Vice President of the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, spoke about the role of science. According to her, currently about $190 million per year is allocated to scientific research in the country — less than 0.2% of GDP.

Previously, she noted, big business practically did not invest in research, but now the time has come to change this approach. At the same time, companies do not necessarily need to create their own laboratories: they can commission research from academic institutions.

As an example, she cited the pandemic period, when scientists were engaged in developing tests and a vaccine.

## Regulation and Control Instead of Restrictions

A wide variety of innovations were discussed at the event. They were presented not only in panel discussions, but also in an interactive format: from the history of innovations for the automotive industry and match manufacturing to developments in the field of medicine. One of the prominent topics was the regulation of tobacco and nicotine products, which currently causes considerable debate.

The choice between regulation and restrictions is particularly evident here. For instance, after the ban on smoking in public places, teenagers in Kazakhstan began smoking less, but many of them switched to nasvay. Kazakhstani dentist Meyram Raganin, who spoke at one of the panel discussions, decided to check its composition since he could not find scientific data about it.

The doctor then sent a sample of the product for laboratory testing. According to the analysis results, the nicotine content in the nasvay turned out to be below 1%. At the same time, the study revealed other substances, including arsenic, benzopyrene, lead, and cadmium.

In Raganin's opinion, this example is important not only because of the composition of a specific product. It illustrates the problem that arises after the introduction of restrictions on nicotine-containing products: the consumer may not give up nicotine, but rather replace one product with another, while the risks of such a transition may be insufficiently studied.

It is on this principle that the concept of tobacco harm reduction is based. Its proponents suggest taking into account the differences between products and assessing the potential harm of each of them separately. One of the key questions here is whether tobacco combustion occurs during the use of the product.

## Why Combustion Is Discussed

Tomoko Iida, PMI Representative for Scientific Affairs, told Podrobno.uz after the conference that, in the company's view, a significant portion of smoking-related diseases is caused specifically by the process of combustion. When tobacco burns, a large amount of harmful substances is formed.

She referred to nicotine as a neuromodulator that affects mood and memory. According to her, it is addictive, is not safe, and is harmful to the developing brain and reproductive function. Therefore, it is important to restrict access to these products for minors, pregnant, and breastfeeding women.

For healthy adults, Iida noted, there are assessments indicating that nicotine itself is significantly less harmful than combustion products. As an example, she cited an assessment by the UK government.

At the same time, PMI does not hide the health risks. The topic under discussion is specifically potentially reduced harm compared to cigarettes.

## What Are the Alternatives to Cigarettes

As an alternative to cigarettes, PMI presents, in particular, tobacco heating systems. The tobacco stick is heated without the process of combustion. The user inhales the resulting aerosol rather than tobacco smoke.

However, the absence of combustion in itself does not mean the absence of risk. Furthermore, even the manufacturer admits that such products still have questions that require study.

Answering a question about what substances are contained in the aerosol of heating systems and what the long-term consequences of their exposure are, Iida cited an example of research conducted by the company in response to a request from the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration).

According to her, PMI discovered 13 substances in the aerosol that were either absent in cigarette smoke or present there in higher concentrations. Four substances, she said, were completely new.

Within the framework of the company's toxicological evaluation, these results showed no cause for concern. However, it is important to take into account that this refers to data provided by the manufacturer itself.

## What About the Claim Regarding the Carcinogenicity of Nicotine?

A separate discussion arose around the widespread claim that nicotine causes cancer.

The PMI representative called such a statement misinformation and referred to "the world's most famous cancer research institute," without specifying its name.

Precision of terminology is important here. If the reference was to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), its position is more complex than a simple statement that "nicotine causes cancer." For example, smokeless tobacco belongs to Group 1 carcinogens, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines are among the carcinogenic components of tobacco products. At the same time, nicotine is not mentioned in the category of carcinogens and is primarily associated with the development of addiction.

Thus, the dispute concerns not only nicotine itself, but also what other substances a person receives along with it and by what method they enter the body.

For manufacturers, this topic also holds obvious economic significance. In the second quarter of 2026, smokeless products accounted for about 42% of PMI's revenue.

Since 2008, according to its own data, PMI has invested more than $16 billion in the development of smokeless products.

## What Doctors Say

The question of whether such an approach can indeed reduce health harm was discussed during a separate panel session. The opinions of the speaking doctors concurred on at least two points: bans alone are insufficient, and the medical approach must take into account the characteristics of the specific individual.

Javokhir Khalmukhamedov, a doctor from Uzbekistan, emphasized that any decisions must be based on the principles of evidence-based medicine. At the same time, it is necessary to consider not only the results of high-quality studies with large sample sizes, but also clinical experience and the individual characteristics of the patient.

Russian oncologist Boris Kasparov drew attention to another problem. Standard recommendations for patients often prescribe simultaneous lifestyle changes: weight loss, dietary changes, increased physical activity, cessation of alcohol and other habits. However, not every person is capable of undergoing such a major journey of changes all at once. Therefore, in his opinion, it is necessary to consider how ready a specific patient is to change their behavior and which step is more realistic for them.

Saida Umarzoda, an oncologist from Tajikistan, noted that restrictive measures alone are insufficient for effective prevention. According to her, it is important not only to introduce bans, but also to offer people practical tools to reduce risks. As examples, she cited the use of seat belts and sunscreen, which help reduce the likelihood of severe consequences without requiring a complete refusal to drive or stay in the sun.

## Study by the Kazakhstani Dentist

However, how convincing is the data on products offered instead of cigarettes?

Let us return to Meyram Raganin, the dentist from Kazakhstan who studied the effect of various methods of nicotine consumption on oral health. At the Technovation conference, he presented the results of two studies.

The first involved 60 people — 30 smokers and 30 users of tobacco heating systems. All of them had been using the respective products for at least three years.

As reported by the specialist, according to the study results, the condition of the periodontium and oral mucosa in users of tobacco heating systems turned out to be better than in smokers.

The second study involved 80 smokers from several cities in Kazakhstan. Half — 40 people — voluntarily switched to tobacco heating systems, while the rest continued to smoke cigarettes.

According to the doctor's data, after six months, those who continued to smoke showed a worsening in periodontal and mucosal indicators. In participants who switched to heated tobacco, these indicators improved.

At the same time, the dentist noted that half of the participants who switched to heated tobacco subsequently quit smoking completely.

However, these results have significant limitations. The sample sizes were small, the groups were not formed randomly, and the observation period was only six months. Therefore, the author himself formulates the conclusion cautiously: tobacco heating systems remain harmful, but, according to the data he obtained, they may be less harmful than cigarettes.

## Nasvay and Other Traditional Products

Against the backdrop of these data, the question regarding products prevalent specifically in Central Asia is particularly important.

Tomoko Iida, Senior Director of Scientific Engagement at PMI, stated that the company has no internal studies on the composition and impact of nasvay. However, PMI has studied traditional smokeless products from India, Algeria, and Morocco.

In one of the samples from Algeria, the pH level was 11.6. The company representative compared such alkalinity to the level of certain detergents and cleaning agents.

This example demonstrates why the absence of combustion in itself does not yet allow a product to be considered less harmful. The composition, the concentration of individual substances, the method of their delivery into the body, and the duration of use all matter.

And here again, a gap arises specifically in regional data. Local specialists have yet to study the composition of nasvay and other traditional products common in Central Asia.

## Data Is Still Insufficient

In the case of cigarettes, the thesis regarding the harm of combustion products has a substantial scientific foundation. Manufacturers of tobacco heating systems also present their own research showing that reducing or eliminating combustion decreases the amount of a number of harmful substances.

However, for Central Asia, far more questions remain. There is an insufficiency of independent data on traditional products like nasvay, little information about the composition of illicit nicotine products, and a lack of research on real consumer behavior following the introduction of bans.

A paradoxical situation emerges: a total ban may push some consumers toward other, less studied products, yet recognizing the reduced risk of alternatives also requires reliable evidence.

Therefore, the key question lies not only in which product should be considered more or less harmful. It is equally important to understand what research such a conclusion is based on, who funded it, and whether the obtained results can be verified independently of the manufacturer.

For now, there is no definitive answer to this question.