http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7303/1
|
||||||||
|
|
Editorials
Universities and tobacco money
Some universities are accomplices in the
tobacco epidemic
Nottingham joins a long list of universities that have accepted funding from
the tobacco industry. Other academic institutions have, however,
taken the opposite stance and severed their ties with this industry.
For example, Brigham and Women's and Massachusetts General hospitals
in Boston, the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, the Roswell
Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, and the University of Sydney all
have policies precluding acceptance of research funds from the
tobacco industry.1
The University of Toronto's school of social work, the University of
Alberta, and the University of Hong Kong have refused donations from
the tobacco industry, 2 3 and
several United States universities, including Johns Hopkins,
Harvard, and the University of California, exclude tobacco stocks
from their investment portfolios.4
Among research funding agencies, the National Cancer Institute of Canada,
the National Heart Foundation of Australia, and some members of the
Association of European Cancer Leagues will not fund researchers who
receive support from the tobacco industry. Other agencies go a step
further: the United Kingdom's Cancer Research Campaign will not fund
researchers if their research institute or university faculty or
school receives tobacco funds, and cancer councils in Australia will
not fund individuals if anyone in their institution receives tobacco
support.*
Many arguments are put forth in support of taking tobacco money: the
supremacy of academic freedom; academia's constant need for more
funds; the existence of ethical guidelines to protect research from
undue influence; the fact that cigarettes are a legal product; the
number of people who derive a livelihood from the tobacco industry;
and the use of the money for a societal "good" rather than
for direct promotion of the company's products.5
Opponents argue that by accepting money from the tobacco industry recipients
not only benefit directly from the sale of cigarettes but also
promote the interests of tobacco companies by facilitating their
ability to sell cigarettes. The acceptance of funding provides these
companies with respectability by association; recipients may also
act as de facto spokespersons for the industry, defending its
interests,5
or, more subtly, remaining silent on issues that may impact
negatively on the industry. This helps maintain the
"legitimacy" of this industry and its products. Furthermore, opponents
argue that ethical guidelines are not sufficient because they often
relate only to research funding and not to other types of
relationships such as donations and investments, and they do not
address industry funded research or activities that deflect attention
away from tobacco's adverse effects. Moreover, some maintain that by
taking tobacco money, universities are shirking their responsibility
as moral institutions6
entrusted with contributing to a healthy, productive, and just society.
The arguments against accepting tobacco money are compelling, particularly
to members of the health community,7 who are
acutely aware of the enormous health toll caused by tobacco and the
even greater number of tobacco related casualties that await us.8 Many are
also aware of the unethical conduct of the tobacco industry and its
long campaign of denial, obfuscation, and deceit over the harmful
effects of its products.9-11
This group may be best positioned to understand that, even if a
particular university may come out ahead by accepting tobacco money
and even if there is some advancement of knowledge, there is still a
net loss for society through the support of this industry's interests.
Once one is prepared to accept that it is inappropriate for universities to
take tobacco money, the next issue is whether this stance should be
extended to other sources of funds. It is argued that tobacco is
unique: it is addictive, toxic, and lethal to half its long term
users, and the number of people harmed by tobacco worldwide is of
epidemic magnitude. 8
12 Yet
there are few, if any, corporate sources of untainted funds. What
about receiving money from the alcohol industry, the pharmaceutical
industry, or other "for profit" sectors that may have an
economic interest in the activities of universities? As the pressure
on universities to find private sources of funding intensifies,
academia will be faced with difficult decisions about where to draw
the line. These ethical issues must be debated. Sadly, the
credibility of contributions to these discussions from Nottingham
University's international centre for corporate social
responsibility will be suspect.
Joanna E Cohen
Department of Public Health Sciences, University
of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2S1
Acknowledgments
*Details of these policies can be found at the following websites: www.research.cancer.ca/download/manual00.pdf?submit=manual00.pdf
www.heartfoundation.com.au/research/r2_01_info_book.html
www.tobacco-control.org/tcrc.nsf/4723e4b3bbc9362e802566e300360f8e/aad41ecf44fc5c818025688f00527525?OpenDocument
www.nswcc.org.au/cncrinfo/research/notices/resgrants/guidelines.htm
|
1. |
Cohen J. Tobacco money lights up a debate. Science
1996; 272: 488-494 |
|
2. |
Cohen JE, Ashley MJ, Goldstein AO, Ferrence R, Brewster
JM. Institutional addiction to tobacco. Tobacco Control 1999; 8: 70-74 |
|
3. |
Sibbald B. U of A refuses tobacco-sponsored scholarship
donation. Can Med Assoc J 2001; 164: 81 |
|
4. |
University of California positions on tobacco industry
external funding and investments. Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program
(TRDRP) Newsletter March, , 2001:4:4. www.ucop.edu/srphome/trdrp/nslttr301.pdf
|
|
5. |
Campbell C. For and against: should Nottingham University
give back its tobacco money? Against. BMJ 2001; 322: 1119 |
|
6. |
Smith R. For and against: should Nottingham University
give back its tobacco money? For. BMJ 2001; 322: 1118 |
|
7. |
Action on Smoking and Health. BMJ Editor dumps
Nottingham University in reader uprising against British American Tobacco
sponsorship. London: ASH, 2001. |
|
8. |
Peto R. Smoking and death: the past 40 years and the
next 40. BMJ 1994; 309: 937-939 |
|
9. |
Glantz SA, Barnes DE, Bero L, Hanauer P, Slade J. Looking
through a keyhole at the tobacco industry. The Brown and Williamson
documents. JAMA 1995; 274: 219-224 |
|
10. |
Sweda Jr EL, Daynard RA. Tobacco industry tactics. Br
Med Bull 1996; 52: 183-192 |
|
11. |
Ong EK, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts subverting International
Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study. Lancet 2000;
335: 1253-1259 |
|
12. |
United States Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing
the health consequences of smoking: 25 years of progress. a
report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Office on Smoking and
Health, 1989. |
|
||||||||
|
|
Other related articles in
BMJ:
EDITOR'S CHOICE
Increasing complexity.
BMJ 2001 323: 0.
EDITOR'S CHOICE [GP]
Increasing complexity.
BMJ 2001 323: 0.
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.