Some Skeptical of Regents’ New Tobacco Policy

Some university faculty and administrators are arguing that a recent UC Board of Regents decision allowing researchers to continue receiving funds from the tobacco industry may not increase transparency or protect academic freedom rights.

The regents decided to abandon a previously proposed ban on some forms of tobacco industry funding and instead voted at their UC Davis meeting last month to let researchers receive the funding if a set of provisions are first fulfilled.

The provisions include undergoing a review process of their research proposal by their campus’s chancellor and a scientific review committee.

But some faculty said they are skeptical about whether the decision will prevent the university from entering research projects that could be influenced by the funding source.

“I’m a bit dubious that it’ll be a control on bad research because I know how these things tend to play out,” said Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health.

In the 2006-07 fiscal year, 23 active awards sponsored by Philip Morris U.S.A. were reported as being given to the university, totalling $16,647,661.

UC Berkeley received four awards totalling $2,066,867.

In addition to the review and approval of research proposals, the regents’ decision also requires an annual report from the UC president showing the number of proposals submitted and approved, among other statistics.

Some said they are unsure if the decision will prevent the university from conducting tainted research projects, since the decision does not apply to projects already in effect.

Kim Vagadori, an organizer for the Campaign to Defend Academic Integrity and a UC Davis alumna, said she tried to get a copy of a $6 million grant from the tobacco industry for the UCLA Adolescent Smoking Cessation Center, but was repeatedly denied.

After seeking help from Regent Chairman Richard Blum, Vagadori said she received a copy, but a significant portion of the text had been censored.

“We had some regental intervention and UCLA (gave) me a partial (copy) of the grant but they redacted so much,” she said. “All we know is Philip Morris (U.S.A.) has given $6 million to understand why youth stay addicted to tobacco.”

But others see the policy’s potential to regulate future research grants as a step forward. Tom Otis, a professor of neurobiology at UCLA said the extra review will allow for added transparency when applying for research grants.

“I think anything that raises awareness of how people get funded is a good thing,” he said.

“In that regard I don’t have a problem with (the decision.)”

The regents’ decision came after previous consideration of a ban on receiving tobacco industry funding unless the funds would not be used to study tobacco-related diseases, the use of tobacco products or the individual or societal impacts of such use.

The Assembly of the Academic Senate had opposed the proposed ban in May, saying that it violated rights to academic freedom.

Moskowitz said the final decision to add new review procedures could also hinder academic freedom, as some funding sources, such as the American Cancer Society, will not give money to researchers in academic units that do not have policies against accepting tobacco industry funding.

Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco, said the overall effects of the regental decision and the censored grant to UCLA will have to wait to be seen.

“I think it’s going to take a little while to see how this thing mellows,” he said. “But it ain’t over—too many people are just too astonished at the lack of transparency.”

Tags: