The livelihoods of researchers in higher education institutions oftentimes depend on grants. It is not unusual for professors to spend a considerable amount of time applying for these grants to further their research. Researchers must balance the need for funding with the obligation to avoid taking money from interest groups, which can create both a public relations nightmare and - much worse - competition between academic freedom and corporate strategy.
Virginia Commonwealth University came under fire in 2008 after details of its "secret" deal with Philip Morris USA were revealed. VCU received a $286,000 research grant from Philip Morris with the stipulation that the corporation would need to approve which results could be published. Obviously, the agreement made it appear as though Philip Morris was trying to keep any data from being released that could negatively affect the tobacco industry. A New York Times editorial blasted VCU for the contract, and the issue gave rise to significant backlash against corporate research sponsorship.
Compare VCU's deal that brought in $286,000 with the University of Virginia's grant from Phillip Morris in 2007, which totaled a whopping $25 million through a partnership with the tobacco firm. But the two arrangements have one fundamental difference: The University ensured that any research results would not need to be reviewed with the company prior to publication, University spokesperson Carol Wood said. By doing so, the University was able to preserve - at least nominally - the academic freedom of its researchers and protect its credibility from undue corporate influence. Such a provision does not guarantee complete research autonomy, but it is without question a necessary step to protect a college's reputation.
Other schools, such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins University, have avoided the issue altogether by banning tobacco money outright to avoid tricky ethical dilemmas and media criticism. This may seem to be the optimal solution, and it is certainly the route of least resistance. But there are key circumstantial differences. Those universities are private and have much larger endowments; Harvard's sits at about $27 billion, more than five times the University's figure. The University is a public school and must fight tooth and nail for every ounce of state funding, meaning private support is critical for research, among other goals of the institution. So although it would be ideal for all colleges to turn down corporate grants categorically to preserve the appearance of objectivity, this view may be somewhat naive. Four-fifths of the University's Phillip Morris grant went toward funding research targeting smoker cessation and tobacco safety concerns. This important research may not have been feasible from a financial standpoint - at least not to the extent possible by accepting the grant.
That necessity does not eradicate concerns about corporate goals biasing research or corrupting a university's academic mission. It is natural and necessary to question what the motives behind such giving are and what such companies - profit-maximizing firms that must focus on financial return - expect to get from such arrangements. The goals may be less nefarious than some individuals suppose. Some amount of "corporate social responsibility" is smart for a company's image, so it could simply be that Phillip Morris wants to make such grants to deflect criticism about the harmful nature of tobacco products. For these no-strings-attached donations, there is little reason that universities should not benefit: Research needs any support it can find.
But that does not mean such grants and partnerships should be given a free pass. Fortunately, because the University is a public institution, any such contract it enters into becomes a matter of public record. (This provision of the Freedom of Information Act is what brought down VCU's deal.) The press and the public have the right and obligation to ask tough questions when universities take money from corporations, especially tobacco firms with a clear interest in promoting certain research results. But anyone who advocates that the University ought to categorically reject tobacco money should have an answer to where else that $25 million can be recouped. Blanket bans are the easy way out; thoughtful agreements with provisions to protect autonomy can preserve the valuable research being done.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
