When one thinks about the tobacco industry, lawsuits and those scary "Truth" ads usually come to mind. Philip Morris USA, however, is hoping to change that public image with a $25 million grant to our university. Through a collaborative effort between the School of Medicine and the McIntire School of Commerce, the University and Philip Morris hope "to help prevent youth smoking, improve the effectiveness of smoking-cessation efforts and reduce the harm caused by smoking," according to the press release from the University. Additional research is also aimed "to increase scientific knowledge of the psychological and physiological basis of addictions and to foster a clearer understanding at the molecular level of the genesis and progression of diseases associated with smoking." Although this sounds wonderful, it is hard to shake the suspicious feeling associated with Philip Morris's involvement with this research. Why would a tobacco company support research aimed at, essentially, shutting them down? It is no coincidence that the University lies in the heart of tobacco country, and we should scrutinize this donation very closely.
The tobacco industry has had a long history of sponsoring research to suit its own interests. In an article on the Inside Higher Ed Web site, Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, commented, "The historical record going back to the mid-'50s of the industry using funding to manipulate the scientific process is too strong. To accept a gift like this, you have to completely suspend belief in the entire historical record, and assume that [the company has] suddenly decided to become the National Institute of Health." She, like many others, came forward in the debate on accepting tobacco industry funds. A recent trend across the country has seen schools, such as the University of California, proposing a ban on researchers accepting these kinds of funds. Furthermore, several national grant-making groups, including the American Cancer Society, are also refusing to give money to researchers or schools that accept tobacco industry donations.
Arthur Garson, dean of the University's School of Medicine, does not see the problem, claiming in the article, "The job is to do something really important -- it's about stopping children from smoking, or not even letting them start. If we can stop kids from starting to smoke, I don't care whether Philip Morris gets PR for it or we get PR for it. If on the basis of this program, children don't smoke, then we have succeeded, period." The real concern over accepting funds from a company such as Philip Morris, however, is the principle of a conflict of interests. Accepting money that Philip Morris makes off of its deadly product is inherently wrong. If Philip Morris truly believed in the prevention of youth smoking, their product, Marlboro, would not be the favorite of young people across the country.
The American Legacy Foundation is one national grant-making group that will not provide funds to researchers who accept donations from the tobacco industry. Their logic is simple: "There is no such thing as a free lunch, and we believe that if you take money from a funder, you have a relationship with that funder," says Ellen Vargyas, general counsel and corporate secretary for American Legacy in Inside Higher Ed. With a relationship based on something as large as $25 million, the University certainly has a lot to pay back to Philip Morris: namely, a turn-around in public image. Allocating funds to research like this is all part of a larger plan to repair their corporate image, something the University should not be a part of. Philip Morris does not want the population to stop smoking; but Philip Morris does want a change in public image, and a strong relationship with a reputable university can do that.
Inside Higher Ed also notes another relationship Philip Morris has fostered in the past: one with Duke University, also in the heart of tobacco country. A 2006 study in the British Medical Journal's "Tobacco Control" found that a majority of peer reviewers and grant applicants in the Duke program had previous ties to the tobacco industry. The authors concluded that the program "appears to exist less as a conduit for critical scientific inquiry than to fit into a corporate strategy intended to burnish [Philip Morris'] public image." We do not want to become another player in the tobacco industry's game of lies and deceptions. Their product is the cause of millions of deaths every year in the United States, and accepting money from those deaths is not right.
In the end, University faculty members promise that the research will be done independently of any interests Philip Morris may have. Unfortunately, we can only wait and see if that will truly happen.
Lindsay Huggins is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer. She is a second-year student in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
