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appeal to replace out-of-date buildings at the university.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.
David
Nicholson (dn@davidnicholson.com)
