Some Campuses Decide Tobacco Company Money Is ‘Tainted’
Officials at the University of Texas business school in Austin became
uneasy when they realized that a reliable donor to student activities
— the parent company of the tobacco maker Philip Morris — wanted a
more prominent role in sponsoring events, and more interaction with
So the school decided two months ago to draw a line, and refuse all
tobacco money for student groups, as well as for faculty research.
“What it came down to for us was the ethical dimension,” said George
W. Gau, dean of the Texas school, the McCombs School of Business.
“The leadership of the school felt that in some sense it was tainted
money, that it is money gotten from a product that is significantly
Across academia, universities and graduate schools are wrestling with
whether to accept financing from tobacco companies for research or
student activities. In the past few years, 15 public health and medical
schools have turned away donations from the industry; McCombs’ move
was unusual because of its longstanding ties to an array of corporations.
But on some campuses, faculty who get tobacco money for research grants
have led pitched battles over proposed bans. Last spring, because
of such faculty opposition, Stanford University and regents of the
University of California system rejected prohibitions on tobacco dollars.
Many faculty members argued that the restrictions would infringe on
academic freedom and lead to fights over money from other potentially
controversial sources, like liquor, pharmaceutical or oil companies.
They said that even if tobacco companies financed research, professors
would guard their independence and not permit the companies to influence
“We take funding from corporations, from the Department of Defense,
from many, many sources, but ultimately the responsibility for the
science belongs to the faculty member who did the science,” said Robert
C. Dynes, president of the University of California system.
The California Board of Regents decided in September that rather than
ban tobacco money, it would require research financed by tobacco companies
to be approved by the chancellor on each campus.
The origins of the movement to ban tobacco money are traced to Australia,
where nearly 20 universities stopped accepting money from the industry
during the 1990s, said Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine
in the division of cardiology at the University of California, San
Francisco medical school. Dr. Glantz was among the prime proponents
of a tobacco ban in the California university system.
Universities also received a nudge from the American Legacy Foundation,
a nonprofit group created as part of a $206 billion settlement in
1998 of a lawsuit filed by 46 states against the tobacco industry.
The foundation, dedicated to reducing tobacco use, awards research
and other grants to universities, but only if the unit of the university
seeking financing does not accept tobacco money.
The medical school at Emory University and the public health schools
at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Ohio State, Louisiana State and the Universities
of Arizona, Iowa and North Carolina have also banned tobacco money.
Proponents of bans often argue that universities should stop accepting
tobacco money not only because of the public health impact of smoking,
but because of what they view as the industry’s misuse of scientific
research to confuse consumers about the risks of smoking and second-hand
“The argument for rejecting funding is that the tobacco industry has
a 50-plus-year history of a corrupting influence on medical research,”
said Dr. Michael J. Thun, the chief of epidemiological research at
the American Cancer Society.
Philip Morris says the money it donates for research is given with
no strings attached.
“When we make those grants, the control of the grant is by the researchers,
and we ask them to publish their results and to make sure to make
public that we funded it,” said Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Philip
Morris U.S.A., the largest tobacco company in the United States. “We
think that the research we’ve funded has contributed to the base of
scientific knowledge.” He declined to disclose how much the company
spends on research grants.
Philip Morris is currently financing one research project at the University
of Texas at Austin, a three-year, $455,000 effort to study how certain
toxic compounds in cigarette smoke react with DNA, causing damage
that can lead to cancer. Jennifer S. Brodbelt, a chemist who is a
researcher on the study, said the company has had no role in the research.
“We are all struggling to maintain our research programs,” Dr. Brodbelt
said. “If we can find new sources to support meritorious research,
I say let’s make the most of it.”
Some of the nearly $150,000 that Philip Morris or its parent company,
the Altria Group, gave to the McCombs school in recent years helped
support two research centers. But most of the money went to student
groups and activities, from the Hispanic Business Students Association
to a conference on women in business leadership.
Because Philip Morris recruits employees from the business school
— an activity not affected by the ban — it wants to support student
events and educational programs, said Mr. Phelps, the company spokesman.
The company donates money for similar activities at several dozen
colleges and universities, he said.
But department chairmen and deans at the business school had become
uncomfortable with the company’s role, and in particular its desire
for more interaction with undergraduates. Some wondered whether giving
the company more prominence on campus would suggest that the university
was in some way endorsing it, said Dr. Gau, the dean.
Paula C. Murray, associate dean for undergraduate programs at McCombs,
was among those who pushed for the ban. “We know the product is deadly,”
she said. “We know it causes cancer. And we know that the younger
you start smoking, the more likely you will find it hard to quit.
With two-thirds of our undergraduates under 21, to me it’s a no-brainer.”
“Just because it’s green,” Ms. Murray added, “we don’t have to take
FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. India Resource Center is making this article available in our efforts to advance the understanding of corporate accountability, human rights, labor rights, social and environmental justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.