Nottingham's smoking gun

LONDON The University of Nottingham's decision to accept £3.8m from British American Tobacco (BAT) is having far-reaching effects. First the Cancer Research Campaign (CRC) announced it is cancelling a £1.5m fundraising appeal to replace out-of-date buildings at the university. Now, Richard Smith — Editor of the British Medical Journal — has announced his resignation from the post of Professor of Medical Journalism. Also, leading researcher David Thurston says he will move his research group from the university. University vice chancellor Colin Campbell defends the university's right to accept the tobacco industry funding, arguing that the university needs a diverse source of funding to stay at the leading edge of research and teaching. He also says the BAT funding complies with the protocol established by the Cancer Research Campaign to ensure that research supported by the CRC is not also funded by monies from tobacco companies. Because the BAT funds will go to create a new International Centre for the Study of Corporate Responsibility, which is organisationally, fiscally and physically separate from areas funded by the CRC, Campbell contends that the university is sticking with the protocol, which was also endorsed by the British Medical Association and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund.The CRC has clearly decided it does not agree. Its decision to withdraw funding comes after conducting a ballot in Nottingham at a recent regional supporters meeting and after taking advice from its senior trustees. In a statement released earlier this year, the CRC said, "The Campaign had intended to launch a £1.5–2m appeal to support this lab [a research institute focusing on drug discovery]. But, in the light of the University's decision to accept money from British American Tobacco… we have decided not to go ahead… We believe that, with a third of all cancer deaths linked to tobacco, we can not look the other way while the university accepts BAT money." The CRC stressed that the pulled appeal was to raise money for a building, not for research. It will continue to fund researchers at Nottingham and other universities. Smith raised awareness of the situation by posting his position on the BMJ website. After explaining his opinion and allowing Campbell to respond, Smith put the issue to readers of BMJ. Readers overwhelmingly responded that the university should return the money to BAT (84%) and also that Smith should resign if the university did not return the money (54%). Smith followed their wishes and sent his letter of resignation to Campbell on 16 May 2001. Smith is heartened by the action of the CRC and Thurston. "I think the university is much more likely to think again now," says Smith, "I'm just a maverick, a part-time professor, so my leaving doesn't really affect them but if they start losing other funding, maybe it will have an impact."Although he is not against universities accepting funding from business in general, Smith is totally opposed to funding from the tobacco industry. And he does see where a conflict of interest can arise for researchers receiving funding. "If research produces results that are not favourable [to the industry providing the funding] then there is a conflict between the academic instinct to publish and the industry's desire to hide bad news." Smith believes these disputes can be solved by the researcher and the funding company making an agreement beforehand on the free publication of results. Sir Richard Peto, professor at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford and among the UK's most eminent cancer authorities, is scathing about Nottingham University's position. "The vice chancellor is close friends with the tobacco industry: this was planned well in advance and he's probably pleased if it causes offence."Peto points out that some tobacco-sponsored research has been worthwhile, such as programmes in the 1950s and 1960s, which determined that lower tar cigarettes may be less harmful — "although they were pleased with these results because they could sell more cigarettes," he said in an aside. And he points out that some research is genuinely aimed at "finding out what does people in." But more recent research such as an attempt to link nicotine with improvements in patients with Alzheimer's disease is bogus, he believes.The CRC has a policy of not donating to universities that take money from tobacco companies, a policy that is likely to become more prevalent if the CRC merges with the Medical Research Council, as has been mooted.Oxford University itself has had a brush with the tobacco industry, when sponsorship was given to the Oxford Union (an august students' debating society) for a debate on smoking. "They invited me to take part and I told them to fuck off," says Sir Richard. His main thrust, as ever, is to return to the fundamental evils of smoking. "BAT obviously thinks it can make more money because of this £3.8 million donation. So if they have to sell another 200 million cigarettes, that means another 200 deaths. They'll have worked that out." Nevertheless, if Oxford did receive funding from the industry, he says he probably wouldn't resign, because to do so would not help reduce the number of deaths from cancer.In Australia, a similar campaign of isolating tobacco companies has taken place, according to Simon Chapman, Associate Professor at the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of Sydney. The Australian Cancer Society refuses to fund scientists who accept tobacco industry money, creating a situation where tobacco-funded science could only attract scientists who lacked credibility. Chapman believes the tobacco industry is striving to produce research that divides national legislators, allowing them to argue that 'it is premature to act' and delaying policy decisions. He has seen scientists very quickly become seduced by tobacco funding, allowing their work to be used as a public relations tool for the industry.This is not the first incidence of UK universities accepting funds from controversial sources. Newcastle University, Birmingham University and Imperial College London have resisted sponsorship overtures from tobacco companies. But Cambridge University accepted funds from BAT four years ago to establish a chair in international relations. The £1.5m gift was strongly opposed by many in the university community. Master of Trinity College, Sir Michael Atihah campaigned against smoking during his presidency of the Royal Society. "Money devoted to education is welcome wherever it comes from, but I still haven't altered my views," said Sir Michael. "If it had been me I would not have taken it."Others are yet more forthright in their condemnation: "It is a shameful day for the vice chancellor of Nottingham University when he supports the industry that is the biggest serial killer known to mankind," says Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North and a former professor of Oncology. "I congratulate Richard Smith on his bravery and commitment in resigning from his position. It is important that people stand up and be counted where companies like those in the tobacco industry attempt to seduce universities into disgraceful practices which can kill, maim or injure our citizens."There have also been similar cases in the US. In 1999, the results of a study by a Duke University researcher were questioned by the US-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, because of his funding from the tobacco industry. And in 1997, the Washington Post revealed Phillip Morris's global strategy to fund research that would produce inconclusive results on the dangers of smoking, to hinder the progress of anti-tobacco legislation.These occurrences highlight the ethical dilemma faced by universities and scientists in deciding from whom they should accept funding. A survey by the Wellcome Trust found that 269 biomedical research papers published in the UK between 1988 and 1994 acknowledged funding from the tobacco industry.

Nottingham's smoking gun

Editor from his post at Nottingham University inprotest at tobacco industry funding has ignited a fierce debate over ethicsand impartiality in medical research.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of