Regents Request to Ban Acceptance of Tobacco Funding Discussion Page

Systemwide Review of the Regent's Proposed RE-89 [PDF]

Letter to Chair Oakley from Regent Moores distributed in the February 14, 2007, Assembly of the Academic Senate Meeting Call [PDF]

Chair Oakley's Response to Regent Moores' letter (includes Academic Council's workgroup report) [PDF]

Report to President Dynes of the Academic Senate Resolutions on a Proposed Ban of Research Funding from Tobacco Companies by the Academic Council on September 27, 2006 and Assembly of the Academic Senate's (Systemwide) on October 11, 2006 [PDF]

The Following documents have been submitted by Assembly of the Academic Senate (Systemwide) Member and UCSF Professor Stan Glantz with respect to discussion of Regents' Request for Senate Action Regarding RE-89's Proposed Restriction of Research Funding from the Tobacco Industry:

UC Davis Policy 240-Research Misconduct

Survey of Accused but Exonerated Individuals in Research Misconduct Cases

Science article about UC's debate over a proposed ban of accepting research funds from tobacco companies [PDF]

Nature article:

At its July 21, 2004, meeting, the Academic Council adopted a Resolution on Restrictions on Research Funding Sources [PDF]. Then, in October of 2004, the Academic Council, in response to concerns raised by some faculty members regarding both the content of the resolution and the need for broader consultation on the issues it addresses, sent the Resolution out for full Senate review and consideration of whether it should stand as written and adopted, or should be amended or rescinded. Formal responses from all nine Divisions and from six standing committees of the Assembly showed a preponderance of support for the resolution in principle. Based on those formal comments and recommendations, the Academic Council adopted an amended version of the Resolution on Restrictions on Research Funding Sources [PDF], which was, on May 11, 2005, adopted by the Academic Assembly as the Resolution of the Academic Senate on Research Funding Sources.

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

(Postings reflect the views of the writers and are not the views of the Academic Senate, its officers, or agencies. Libelous material will not be posted. Factual documentation of questionable statements may be requested, but comments will not be edited. The Academic Senate Office reserves the right to refuse to post any item that is deemed inappropriate or unrelated to the business of the Academic Senate. )

To see posted comments click the links below: