JOE CAMEL and the Marlboro Man were two of the most memorable icons created by the tobacco industry.Their purpose was to lure more people, especially younger ones, into the world of tobacco.Today, the goal of boosting tobacco sales ironically competing with the goal of educating America's youth about the dangers of smoking. With that in mind, the tobacco tycoons of Philip Morris USA offered a $25 million research grant to their new mascots: the Wahoos.
Addicted to the prospect of "ground-breaking research," as Dean Carl Zeithaml of the Commerce School boasted, the University eagerly forged a deal with the world's largest commercial tobacco company. While most of the faculty and administration who accepted this grant expressed confidence that the research won't see influence from Philip Morris, history suggests otherwise.
The overwhelming preponderance of scientific studies on the relatively new issue of second hand smoke suggests that it is linked to a higher probability of various diseases and even death.
Then there is James E. Enstrom, a cancer research rogue at UCLA. He claims that most research about second-hand smoke reflects the efforts of a vast disinformation campaign that perverts data with hyperbole. Enstrom might be a credible source -- if his research wasn't funded by Philip Morris. A timeline compiled by Jon Krueger, a contributor for tobacco industry watchdog tobacco.org, reveals that Enstrom incessantly begged the tobacco industry for money to support his research. J.R. Reynolds and Philip Morris, over a span of 25 years, gladly obliged, providing more than half a million dollars.
As you might expect, tobacco industry-funded researchers retort that their funding source has no bearing on the objectivity of their research.
If you're somewhat skeptical of their claim, you're absolutely right. Tobacco Control, published by the British Medical Journal, hosted a study which concluded that Philip Morris External Research Program launched in 2000 -- which provided the grant for the University -- served mainly to polish Philip Morris's image and "less as a conduit for critical scientific inquiry." The conclusion resulted from the findings that the majority of peer-reviewers shared past connections to Philip Morris and that "research solicitation seemed to invite mitigating evidence" about the harmful effects of cigarettes.
But the difference between studies conducted by the University and researchers like Enstrom is that the University's research probably won't produce data in support of the tobacco industry. Then the question is why Philip Morris would allow the University to potentially hack away at their profits with, as Zeitheml says, "programs [designed] around anti-smoking and the prevention of smoking". One plausible reason is that Philip Morris is confident that the University's smoking prevention scheme will be ineffective. Regardless of whether the smoking resarch would cause Philip Morris to lose money, they're probably aware of the potential public relations benefit a generous $25 million grant for a cause as noble as protecting innocent children might generate.
Hidden within Philip Morris' protest against youth smoking is a disheartening message that smoking for adults is alright. A National Public Radio report cited that the rate of smoking is highest among not only young adults, but also college students. Not a single part of the University's research goals seeks to reduce smoking among its students. "The goal is to provide personalized messages to kids," says Arthur Garson, Dean of the University Medical School.
The really mind-numbing fact is that the University requested the grant from Philip Morris in spite of the company's track record of infusing its agenda into objective external research efforts. Had the University reached out for help from institutions considered inert in the market realm such as the National Institutes of Health or the American Lung Association, it would erase suspicions of data manipulation.It is, after all, hard to fathom how they would neglect the University's youth smoking prevention program if approached for help, especially if would be as "ground-breaking" as it claims to be.
Even better, researchers could request tobacco company money directly from the government to resist a corruption of interests. A deal brokered between the U.S. Attorney General and tobacco companies provides two billion dollars in research funding provided at the discretion of state governments -- not tobacco companies -- to researchers over the next 25 years.
Faculty and administrators at other schools such as the University of California have raised questions over accepting research funding from tobacco companies -- the types of questions that were not publicly discussed at the University prior to its announcement of the partnership with Philip Morris. University of California regent and California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante proposed a ban on research funding provided by the tobacco industry.
Joining California in their stand against the tobacco industry could have affirmed a convincing message of solidarity and consistency throughout the nation, that tobacco and the intentions of tobacco companies are dangerous. By offering its research resources, the University inadvertently provided Philip Morris a greatly needed public relations boost. Rejecting tobacco industry money raises moral concern against the absurd notion of supporting anti-smoking research with money given by same people who are responsible for helping to kill millions with their products.
It's certainly a pity that the University sought the help of Philip Morris -- not the other way around. Starving Philip Morris of the help of our academic institutions while seeking research assistance elsewhere would have been the higher road, both morally and practically, for the University to take.
Charles Lee's column usually appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at clee@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 19 hours agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 2 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 5 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
