TobaccoHarmReduction.org
Original Article |
Our Response |
Terrible optics on tobacco study | |
Editorial Opinion Thursday, November 10, 2005 |
|
| These days, universities rely increasingly on money from private companies to fund research.
Drug companies are the obvious example; oil and forestry companies are also big grant givers in Alberta.
So, is taking money from a tobacco company any different? Yes it is, especially when it pays for research in which the company has a vested interest. |
We are pleased to see the Journal back off from its previous position that apparently would prohibit tobacco industry funding to save a failing literature department, but they still lack a stated basis for their position. Read this carefully. There is absolutely no justification for their assertion that taking money from a tobacco company is different. |
| It's surprising the University of Alberta didn't see red flags going up when it accepted $1.5 million from the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company for research at the U of A medical school. The research project -- aimed at showing chewing tobacco is less harmful than smoking -- could directly benefit the funding company in marketing its products. | Despite the Journal interviewing Dr. Phillips for more than twenty minutes about the substance of his research, they still get the most basic points wrong. There is no "the research project" (the funding is completely unrestricted, and is being used to support a variety of different projects) and almost none of that work is research to show ST is less harmful than smoking – that is already demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, so there is not much research to be done on the point. (Also, the writer demonstrates a failure to understand the scientific process. If it really were unknown whether ST is less harmful than smoking, then the research would be aimed at determining if that were true, not showing it to be true.) |
| Consider also that U of A researcher Carl Phillips has for some time been promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes. Phillips's public stance, combined with tobacco company money, seems a questionable starting point for objective results. | See our overview (coming soon) about this odd concept of "objectivity". In any case, these statements seems to be premised on the same errors we comment on above, so is clearly baseless. |
| Researching the health effects of chewing tobacco is legitimate scholarly work. But if the medical school wants the research to have credibility, why would it use money from the company that makes the product? To the public, the conflict of interest stares you in the face, whatever the complexities of university ethics policies. Society puts its trust in universities because they are independent institutions pursuing research for the public good, says Brendan Leier, ethicist at the John Dosseter Health Ethics Centre. Research funded by drug companies, for instance, is aimed at finding new treatment for disease. Oil companies fund the sort of research that might, for example, get more oil from the oilsands. | Notice that in all the bluster about credibility and public perceptions, the anonymous writer never actually says anything about why the credibility should be in question or that the public should have negative perceptions (other than, perhaps, because the writer is telling them that is how they should feel). |
| It's hard to see the broader public good in research into chewing tobacco funded by its manufacturer. With tobacco, the public good comes from getting people to stop using it. | It is actually quite easy to see the good if one bothers to listen to Dr. Phillips and to understand the harm reduction message when interviewing him, or if one reads the content of this website. The only reason it might be hard to see is because the Journal is working very hard to hide it. |
| In 2000, the U of A Board of Governors quietly turned down a donation of $500,000 from Imperial Tobacco for student scholarships. It's unfortunate the research arm of the university didn't take a cue from that decision. At the time, tobacco companies were about to lose the right to sponsor events in Canada and were looking for others ways to promote themselves. University campuses were a great possibility. | Note again the complete lack of substantive argument. Not only is there no argument about why research funding decisions should imitate a decision about scholarships, but there is no argument for why the decision about scholarships was right. (It is deliciously ironic that the author is implicitly arguing that turning down the scholarship money must have been the right thing to do because that was what the university decided.) |
| The board of governors realized there was no advantage and considerable potential harm in promoting the interests of tobacco companies on campus. | |
| Smoking rates among young people are already much higher (30 per cent) than the general population (around 21 per cent). | What this has to do with an argument about the ethics of funding is baffling. Especially since the funder in question (USSTC) does not make cigarettes. |
| The university should ask itself if tobacco companies make good research partners. They sell a product that's addictive and lethal. In the past, they've been less than forthright in their own research. As recently as 1994, executives of the big seven tobacco companies were still denying their product was addictive. | Here the writer uses the word "partners" to imply some kind of give-and-take collaborative relationship, purposely trying to obscure the fact that the funder gives this money to the university and has no further involvement. |
| They've used dubious marketing techniques. (U.S. Smokeless Tobacco adds mint or cherry flavour. Who would that be aimed at?) In the end, the university has no obligation to take on this research or any other project for a private company. | As the author no doubt knows, no one is suggesting the university has an obligation to take funding, so it is difficult to understand who she is arguing with or what the point is. |
|
If smokeless tobacco companies want to research the health effects of their products, they could hire scientists and do
it on their own.
But that's not the point, of course. The tobacco company wants the credibility and prestige of a university study behind their product. That's part of the reason some prestigious U.S. universities such as Harvard don't accept funding from tobacco companies. |
See the overview (coming soon). |
| The U of A says it is making a contribution to the public policy debate on smoking by doing this research. If this area of research is a new priority at the U of A, there are certainly better ways to fund the research. | It is tempting to ask the writer for suggestions (she is apparently under the mistaken impression that universities hand out large sums of money to their professors). But it is better to not be distracted by the rhetoric: Notice the assertion that other sources of funding would be "better", again lacking any substantive argument as to why that might be the case. |
| The university has a well-deserved reputation as a world-class research institution. It made a bad call in accepting this $1.5 million. The decision is bound to hurt the university's credibility in the larger community. Let's hope it's not too late to reconsider. |
The final paragraph nicely completes the non-argument: To summarize the content of the editorial: The writer does not
understand the nature of the funding or what it will be used for (or understands but has chosen to lie to her readers),
but is sure that it is bad. Why is it bad? Because other funding is available (a dubious claim in itself), and it is
better. Why is the other funding better? Because the tobacco industry funding will hurt the university's reputation.
Why is that? Because editorial writers will assert that it hurts the university's reputation (this point is perhaps
true – interestingly, it is absent from the actual editorial) and furthermore, U of A has previously turned down
tobacco industry funding and Harvard will not take it (though it is not clear they have ever been tested), and of
course when a university makes a decision about accepting funding, they must be right. Hmmm.
Ok, we give up. We will admit that we cannot deconstruct this. We invite the author to post a reply in our discussion
forum to help us sort it out. |