UC tobacco money ban delayed -- again

The recent decision by the University of California Board of Regents to delay ruling on whether to ban research funding from tobacco companies extends a long period of division among UC faculty and administration."There's no unanimous opinion," Laurence Coleman, Vice Provost for Research at the University of California told The Scientist, who noted the main reasons the university's Office of the President and Office of Research opposes the ban stem from academic freedom and maintaining an open-door policy to sponsors. "We have been unanimous in thinking that restrictions on where the faculty gets funding would not be in the best interest of the university."However, those in favor of the ban argue that barring tobacco companies from funding research will actually preserve academic freedom, by preventing the companies from pushing their commercial interests. Indeed, dozens of schools -- including Harvard Medical School -- have already instituted bans on research funding by tobacco companies. "Tobacco companies are engaged in fraud and universities are supposed to be about truth," said Stan Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, and outspoken supporter of the proposed bans. He said the ban is an important step in maintaining the sterling mission of the university to protect academic freedom. "No one is restricting the content of research. This is about not taking money from a corrupt industry." At present, the University of California receives $15.8 million direct donations from Philip Morris for 19 active research grants. The university also receives gifts from tobacco companies and their subsidiary companies, totaling about $485,000 since 2005. While sizable, these funds make up a miniscule proportion of the total amount of gifts and pledges made to the university, which equaled $1.29 billion in 2006. In 2004, several University of California campuses voted to not accept funds from tobacco companies. The university president's office declared that the campuses did not have the authority to make fiscal decisions, and that it was up to the Board of Regents to decide the issue. The Board of Regents' John Moores (who declined to comment for this article) proposed to vote on the ban January 18, but the Board decided to delay its decision, to allow the system-wide faculty assembly to debate the issue further, and present their recommendations to the Board in May. According to Coleman, the delays have stemmed from the fact that the faculty assembly, made up of UC faculty, have appeared indecisive, giving the Regents an unclear picture of what the faculty as a whole wants. A tobacco funding ban first appeared before the Regents in September 2006, and has now been returned twice to the faculty for further debate In addition to potentially infringing on academic freedoms, opponents of the proposed ban have said the ban could lead to a slippery slope, creating additional bans on other corporate donors. Coleman said the administration is strongly against blocking funding from any source -- for instance, the school received grant money from the Nevada Association of Prostitutes several years ago.Last August, the district court of the District of Columbia found Philip Morris guilty of manipulating and misrepresenting scientific data, violations of the federal Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act. The company was cited for the Center for Indoor Air Research, created and operated by Philip Morris under the auspices of an independent research facility, which produced data that furthered Philip Morris's economic goals. The Center funded a study led by James Enstrom, a University of California, Los Angeles researcher, who the Judge directly implicated in the misconduct.Many University of California faculty members say they are frustrated by the board's hesitation to vote on the ban, especially in light of foul play on the part of the tobacco companies. "There are reams of evidence that the tobacco industry manipulates and has influenced research in the past," Lisa Bero, chair of the University of California, San Francisco, committee on conflict of interest, told The Scientist. She added that she disagrees with claims that the ban may infringe on academic freedom or lead to more bans on corporate funding. "It's hard for me to believe that really good ideas require tobacco industry funding," Nancy Rigotti, a tobacco researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, told The Scientist. Both Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, where she is an associate professor, have had policies of non-acceptance of tobacco dollars for many years and, according to Rigotti, have suffered no negative repercussions as a result.David Sutton, spokesperson for Philip Morris USA, told The Scientist that the company funds research completely independently of its interests. Sutton declined to comment on the proposed ban before the University of California Board of Regents, or accusations that tobacco companies use and manipulate their funded research to further the company's economic goals.Andrea Gawrylewski agawrylewski@the-scientist.comLinks within this article:Adoption of the policy restricting university acceptance of funding from the tobacco industry. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/jan07/re89.pdfF. Godlee, "Tobacco industry's smoke screen blown," The Scientist, August 2, 2000. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/19057E. Russo, "Science in conflict," The Scientist, July 15, 2003. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/21458/Research funding: Acceptance of funding from corporate sponsors associated with the tobacco industry http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/sept06/re78.pdfDistrict court ruling http://www.ucsf.edu/senate/townhallmeeting/dckessler-rico-uc.pdfJE Enstrom, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98." BMJ, May 17, 2003. http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/12750205James Enstrom http://www.cancer.mednet.ucla.edu/institution/personnel?personnel_id=66099B. Maher, "An interview goes up in smoke," The Scientist, June 2006. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23541

UC tobacco money ban delayed -- again

The Scientist ARCHIVES

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Andrea Gawrylewski

Related Research Resources

What Is the Amniotic Fluid Composed of?

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Skip the Wait for Protein Stability Data with Aunty

An Automated DNA-to-Data Framework for Production-Scale Sequencing

Exploring Cellular Organization with Spatial Proteomics

Organoid Origins and How to Grow Them

Products

Product News

BRANDTECH Scientific Introduces the Transferpette® pro Micropipette: A New Twist on Comfort and Control

Biotium Launches GlycoLiner™ Cell Surface Glycoprotein Labeling Kits for Rapid and Selective Cell Surface Imaging

Thermo Scientific X and S Series General Purpose Centrifuges

VANTAstar Flexible microplate reader with simplified workflows