Con Regents Request to Ban Acceptance of Tobacco Funding Comments

Posted 3/27/07 by Michael A. Savageau, Chair, Biomedical Engineering: We, the faculty of the Department of Biomedical Engineering, are opposed to the restriction on acceptance of funding from the tobacco industry.  Our conclusions are based on a few key beliefs:

1) We believe that scientific integrity governs the actions of faculty research, and that the resolution negatively implies that the source of funding has influence over the outcome of experimentation.

We believe that scientific integrity is at the heart of all research pursued by University faculty and that acceptance of funds from tobacco-related industry does not represent "a support of public deception about its products", nor does it represent endorsement of tobacco products.  Ethical researchers interpret experiments based on the data that is obtained, not on the idea of being obligated to please a funding agency.  With the strong principles of scientific integrity in our community the source of funding should not impact the results of any study.

2) Tobacco funding supports basic research on the mechanism and treatment of disease.

Some of the pro arguments mistakenly assume that research being funded by tobacco money is for the purpose of supporting that tobacco is not harmful.  There seems to be confusion between research directly sponsored by tobacco companies, research supported by foundations funded by tobacco industry dollars, and taxation of tobacco products—all of which fall under the category of "tobacco funding". Foundation funding from the tobacco industry for research supports basic research on tobacco-related diseases such as atherosclerosis and cancer, research which does not necessarily concern the effects of tobacco.  For example, research on imaging systems to diagnosis of the formation of atherosclerotic plaques is funded by Phillip Morris—no tobacco is involved in these studies.  Furthermore, competitive research funding is adminstrated through a third party.  Therefore, a buffer exists between the researcher and the tobacco industry--tobacco industry employees have no direct control over distribution of funding.  Finally, funding basic research is a type of  "penance" paid by the tobacco industry.  Society is best served by investing this money in solid fundamental research on disease.

3) We believe that this ban violates the principles of academic freedom. 

Passage of this ban would be a dangerous precedent that could open scientific research to the intervention by other political groups--today we ban funding from tobacco, tomorrow we ban funding for stem cell research, where are the lines drawn?  The ban represents an unreasonable interference of the pursuit of knowledge. 

Supported by 16 Academic Senate Faculty of the Department. 

Posted 3/23/07 by Patrick S. Romano: The Regents' proposed policy RE-89 states, in part:
"The freedom of our academic community to pursue research and educational activities is vital to the University’s mission and to its success as a world-class institution, and should be affected by University mandate only in rare and compelling circumstance. The collective use of sponsored research by the manufacturers and distributors of tobacco products as an industry to support a public deception about its products is unique, unprecedented and represents just such rare and compelling circumstance."

Although I have religiously avoiding research funding from all for-profit sources (including the tobacco industry and entities controlled by or related to the industry) through a 19-year career in the University of California, I cannot support the above interpretation for the following reasons:

First, there are numerous other examples in which sponsors have suppressed University research that conflicts with their economic interests, or distorted research findings to deceive the public and the regulatory agencies that represent the public. For example, Boots Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its corporate parents engaged in a six-year campaign to suppress, discredit, and distort the findings of a study conducted at UCSF, which showed that two generic levoythyroxine preparations were bioequivalent to the preparation manufactured by the sponsor (JAMA 1997;277:1238-43; 277:1205-13). In another well documented case not involving UC, Apotex Inc. essentially colluded with a major Canadian University to suppress research demonstrating the limited efficacy and risk of hepatic fibrosis associated with an oral iron chelator, and to discredit a highly respected investigator (see  for full chronology). In another recent case, Bayer Pharmaceutics systematically misinterpreted and/or ignored convincing evidence of toxicity associated with the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor cerivastatin (JAMA 2004;292:2622-31). In the pivotal trial of celecoxib, only 6-month data were reported when 12-month data showing no benefit in reducing gastrointestinal toxicity were actually available (JAMA 2001;286: 2398).In the key trial of rofecoxib, data showing increased cardiovascular toxicity were downplayed and erroneously dismissed as due to a cardioprotective effect of naproxen (N Engl J Med 2000;343:1520-8). Results of trials of paroxetine that demonstrated increased risk of teenage suicide or lack of efficacy were suppressed and only revealed after a lawsuit was brought against the manufacturer (BMJ 2004;328:1513).The sponsor of a human immunodeficiency virus immunogen trial withheld key data and sued the investigators to try to block publication of the study results (see JAMA 2005;294:2576-2577 for description of this and other cases). Recent evidence indicates that the manufacturer of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator failed to report critical, potentially fatal design defects for more than 3 years (JAMA 2005;294:110-1).

The point of this litany (further described by Bodenheimer in NEJM 2000;342:1539-44) is simply that the tobacco industry does not have a monopoly on systematic efforts to deceive the public regarding the findings of sponsored research.  The tobacco industry is only unique in the fact that this effort has been undertaken through "racketeering" involving multiple manufacturers; however, the distinction between multiple manufacturers cooperating in deception versus independently engaging in similar deception seems immaterial.  The tobacco industry is simply an easy target because it is a relatively modest contributor to the University's entire research enterprise (unlike the pharmaceutical industry), the University is not a major purchaser of tobacco products (unlike pharmaceutical products), and the tobacco industry is in a weakened strategic position because of its shrinking domestic market and heavy liability burden.  Indeed, as my colleague Prof. Robbins suggests, it seems hypocritical for the University to ban tobacco funding when it actively seeks continued funding for classified research related to the maintenance and reliability of nuclear weapons ( http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/labshistory.pdf ).  Although tobacco has undeniably killed more people than nuclear weapons, it is difficult to argue that unclassified research sponsored by the purveyors of tobacco should be proscribed while classified research sponsored by the "purveyors" of nuclear weapons is encouraged.

Therefore, this resolution is inappropriate absent a systematic review of the University's entire research portfolio (analogous to ongoing reviews of the University's stock portfolio) to identify sponsors whose behavior has been so egregious as to warrant the suggested action.  Before and until such a review is undertaken, with uniform application of agreed-upon ethical standards, the University should continue to rely on the judgment and professional expertise of its faculty, and the guidelines and policies that have been implemented over the past decades.  The continuing efforts of sponsors to distort or misrepresent findings from their own sponsored research are commonplace, indeed expected in a market economy.  These efforts should not trigger Regental bans, as long as the University and its faculty are free to publish, present, and disseminate any and all of their findings and interpretations without externally imposed restrictions.  To my colleagues on the faculty who undertake research funded by industry - any industry (substitute "tobacco" for "pharmaceutical") - I offer these thoughtful comments from a Canadian group (CMAJ 2001;165:783-5):

"The duty of universities is to seek truth.  The duty of pharmaceutical companies is to make money for their shareholders.  Drug companies that fail to do so go out of business.  Universities that subordinate the disinterested search for truth to other ends lose credibility and their claim to a privileged status in society.  If either abandons its fundamental mission, it ultimately fails.  At times, institutional imperatives are bound to conflict.  Research can either serve or subvert the public interest. Its findings may advance knowledge and support useful innovation, or be filtered and twisted to support prejudices or gain commercial advantage.  The capacities and integrity of researchers, and their universities, can be enhanced or corrupted in the process. Some partnerships are united by an open-minded quest for discovery; others are unholy alliances whereby researchers and universities become handmaidens of industry.  Whatever ethical bed we make, we lie in... Some bargains are Faustian, and some horses are Trojan. Dance carefully with the porcupine, and know in advance the price of intimacy."

Posted 3/19/07 by Laura Van Winkle: I think that we need to keep in mind that tobacco smoking, while unpopular and irresponsible, is not illegal. It is my belief that the current UC standards of conduct already clearly state guidelines governing receipt of research funding and that restriction of specific sources based on "political correctness" is a slippery slope. The choice to take money from the tobacco industry, or from foundations supported with money by the tobacco industry, is up to each individual scientist to make for themselves. And rightly so.

FYI, I am funded by TRDRP which is the State of California's Program that is bankrolled by an additional tax the State imposes on cigarettes purchased in California. In this program the money does not come from Tobacco Industry coffers but from a tax the State imposes on cigarettes. This is not Tobacco Settlement money. I have made the personal choice not to take money from tobacco industry sponsored programs such as the Phillip Morris Foundation. A large factor in this decision is my personal dislike of tobacco smoking and a desire not to support the Tobacco Industry in any way. I should also point out that in my field, lung biology, two of the top-ranked journals will not accept studies funded by tobacco industry sources and this was a factor in my decision.

What I am trying to get at here is that this is an individual scientists choice and that each scientist may view this process quite differently based on their background, conscience and beliefs. Based on this, I think that it is inappropriate to restrict receipt of money obtained from tobacco industry sources such as Kraft Foods, RJR Nabisco and Phillip Morris etc as described in RE-89. The ability to have differing beliefs and points of view on issues such as this is the cornerstone of Academic Freedom and should not be legislated into political correctness.

Posted 3/16/07 by Bruce D. Hammock: It is important that the Academic Senate separate funding directly from the tobacco industry from funding from a foundation supported by the industry.   These are completely different issues and sources of funding.

With regard to funding from foundations, these can be separated from the actual industry.  They may provide good PR for the industry in looking at health, but they do not directly benefit the industry.  They do not encourage smoking.  Many of these foundations are set up with boards to fund high quality research and should be evaluated on a one by one basis.  For example chronic obstrutive pulmonary disorder is a terrible disease closely associated with smoking.  We have developed some compounds in collaboration with Kent Pinkerton which may reduce the severity of the disease.  One review on a proposal we submitted to them is::

If successful this work would reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with COPD and thus smoking.  I recommend against funding because it might encourage a smoker with COPD to continue smoking.

I do not agree with this review to let smokers die, however it does point out that the committees of foundations like Philip Morris tend to error on the side of being anti-smoking.  

Having lost my father and many dear friends and relatives to smoking, I am not a fan of the tobacco industry.  However we need to be careful about cutting off reserach funding just to feel good about ourselves.  By the way I do not have funding from the PM foundaion or the Tobacco Settlement  (but I would love to).

More than a few years back my roomate at Berkeley took on the University for being just a bit too politically correct.  Berkeley was proposing to not teach students who used their knowledge for military purposes.  My room mate luckily won the battle.  We need to realize that if we interject our political views too heavily into research funding, we may set a policy that could be very detrimental.

Posted 3/14/07 by David L. Dawson, MD: The number of reasons to dislike smoking and tobacco use is limitless, but the need to ban research funding from tobacco companies is unnecessary and inappropriate.

First, funds for biomedical and other research are limited. When the University shuts off sources of research support, the academic mission is hampered.

Second, it is hypocritical to ban funding from one controversial source, but not others. Federal monies are an essential source of research support, but many in the University community oppose some of the US government's actions or policies. Should we forgo NIH funding if we don't like everything the government does? I can't imagine the Regents saying, "Get out of Iraq or we won't take your research dollars!"

Third, the current proposal is based on a perception that this action is ethical and morally superior to the alternative. However, for a University community that espouses diversity, I think we should accept others as moral, even when we don't agree with them, within the broad scope of behavior and morality that is part of 21st century America. For some
people, research utilizing stem cells is objectionable and unethical, but there has been no hesitation by the University to accepting money for and doing stem cell research. Does the University say that it is ethically right and the opponents are wrong or uninformed?

Last, consider the unintended consequences of bans and wholesale condemnation of one sector. What impact might this have on worthwhile agricultural research? Might there be legitimate medical research that would be harmed? Seldom are issues truly as black and white as the most vocal within our University would claim.

As a vascular specialist, I am delighted when education, public policy, and personal initiatives help people stop smoking or avoid starting. I don't smoke. I don't like it and I don't invest in companies that sell tobacco.

I don't, however, assume that my political or moral views need to be imposed on everyone working at the University of California. I don't picket in front of stores that sell cigarettes and I don't belittle my patients who continue to smoke. I accept that this is a part of the diverse world in which we live.

This proposal is not where the University needs to be focusing its resources.

Posted 3/14/07 by Steve Anderson: Since I am one of the researchers who has taken money from Philip Morris and would like more, my perspective regarding RE89 is likely to be biased. Nevertheless I wish to contribute an opinion. Aside from broader issues of academic freedom, which are not trivial and should not be given short shrift, the UC academic community should be the last to give into arguments of guilt by association. It is incumbent upon those who want to ban tobacco funding to demonstrate that UC researchers who have taken the funds have used it for anything other than research which meets the high standards for which UC is known. Furthermore, I have yet to see any clear evidence that the tobacco industry has misused or misinformed anyone about research they have funded at UC. Instead, what I have seen from proponents of this ban are innuendo and scare tactics. Undoubtedly the vast majority of us joined this community with aspirations of contributing to the fine tradition of scholars who stood up for the truth. That is, to some extent such fine minds as Socrates, Galileo, and Darwin are our role models. Where would we be if the scholars we admire had worried about and given in to public opinion instead of pursuing their goals? As a scholarly community, we should continue to stand up for the truth and not succumb to suggestions that our motives are questionable because we take money from those whose motives are questionable. We and the Regents should be defending UC researchers who have used tobacco funds to further our understanding of tobacco related disease. To suggest that the tobacco industry could not do something good with this program is the ultimate in oversimplification and should be beneath our scholarly tradition. If we will not educate the public about how these funds are used, who will? Please do not be swayed by political arguments which will move UC one step closer to so many institutions which base their decisions on uninformed public perspective and short term convenience rather than long term goals. As Karl Marx said, "If there were no difference between reality and appearance, there would be no need for science." Let us support science and work to educate those who base their view on appearances. Please do not support those who would give in to ignorance rather than trying to fight it.

Posted 3/13/07 by Kishorchandra Gohil: I am AGAINST the Ban to accept funding from Tobacco Industry.

The funding from tobacco industry is NO different from that of State funding such as TRDRP for tobacco related research. The source for funding for TRDRP is also from the tobacco industry.

The tobacco industry does NOT restrict us from publishing our research discoveries in peer-reviewed journals. This policy is IDENTICAL to that of NIH.

Posted 3/13/07 by John Robbins: I do NOT take money from tobacco companies.

I do take lots of funding from the most dangerous entity in the world. The organization I take money from; fires individuals who disagree with it, ban scientific publication by its employees with which it disagrees, refuses to support very scientifically credible research for religious reasons etc. Need I go on?

The university should trust the scientific integrity of its faculty and if necessary review their work but not ban a specific funding source. I agree tobacco companies are devious, dishonest, and disreputable sales people of death but so are lots of other entities which fund research. Let us judge research on its merit, not who funds it.

Please send your letters as text in the body of an email to gina.anderson@ucdavis.edu. Include any supporting documentation as an attachment or link. Please indicate which category your email should be posted in: Neutral, Pro, or Con.

To see posted comments click the links below:

Back to Tobacco Funding Main Page