As humans, we have the ability to apply common sense to seemingly similar basic situations with differing underlying issues. To draw a parallel between direct tobacco funding when tobacco products have been proven to cause health problems, and various religious organizations, insinuates we lack the ability to apply common sense and reason. I echo Jim's comment below that this is an institutional decision which has to be based on institutional circumstances. But near the top of my list of frustrations is any policy which removes my ability to apply common sense as I do my job. Once the reasonableness element is removed from the decision process and every situation can be approved or disapproved based on a generalized rule in our policies and procedures manual, my job becomes quite boring and could ultimately be performed by a computer that had appropriate logic programmed into it. That said, the University of Iowa doesn't have a written policy saying that we cannot accept funds from the tobacco industry. We do however very closely scrutinize any research involving tobacco companies. Our College of Public Health has adopted a policy that any recruiting meals and/or entertainment reimbursed by the College cannot take place at any of the local restaurants who allow smoking. If you ever have the opportunity to hear former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop speak, I highly recommend you do so. His presentation when he visited Iowa City was tremendous. Jeanne McCabe, CPA, MBA Research Administrator University of Iowa Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine 224 CMAB Iowa City, Iowa 52242 xxxxxx@uiowa.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:07:47 -0700 From: "James R. Brett" <xxxxxx@CSULB.EDU> Subject: Re: Policies on Funding from Tobacco Companies Chuck, My position is this: to play or not to play with the tobacco companies is a decision that an institution can make. I have a personal bias, of course, because I was a hooked smoker for many years, so I come down against playing with them. The decision happens to have been made for me at my institution and, as I have detailed, that decision coincides with my own opinion, which is just great for me. I am deliberately trying to avoid generalizations from this experience to funding from other sources, because I believe that the decision to accept funding from tobacco companies or not should be approached institutionally on the merits and demerits of the situation, which in fact it was. The situation at VCU or at my alma mater over in Charlottesville may take on a different hue based on a variety of considerations, not the least of which are 1) the extent to which the relationship defines the moral posture of the institution, and 2) practical utilitarian considerations, like survival as an institution. You know where I come out on this. As to the separate and more generalizable problem of certain funding sources establishing rules against institutions taking funds from agencies that have agendas antithetical to their own, I say let 'em. It is still a free country. You are right, the institution must then decide. I can easily see how, for an example, a private foundation or association dedicated to issues relating to DUI/DWI might decline to fund institutions that accept money from the manufacturers and distributors of intoxicating liquor. The institution must decide whether to accept the foundation's money or not. The decision could be made 1) "on principle" that the institution will not take such orders from outside parties, which is your position as I read it, or 2) "on the merits" of the individual situation, which is my position; take them one at a time based on the intrinsic issues and avoid overgeneralizing the problem. Jim "Herbert B. Chermside" wrote: > Jim, my position is precisely that, whether tobacco, religion, ethnicity, > or anything else is the subject, a university cannot let abhorrence of the > subject by one external constituency control the sources of funding > available to that university which come from constituencies supporting the > subject. This is a type of prior censorship that cannot be tolerated if > the institution is to remain objective and impartial! > > In other words, the question is not about tobacco, the subject, but control > by external constituencies. > > If the institution, through its established decision making processes, > determines internally that it will avoid activities supported by some > external constituency, that is altogether a different matter. > > Chuck > > At 01:38 PM 10/8/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >Tom, we have no written policy, but our research foundation has divested > >itself > >of all tobacco company stocks, and I would take that as precedent for a > >strenuous resistance to participation in any project whatsoever sponsored by a > >tobacco company. My campus receives public agency funds for smoking cessation > >projects in our state. That, too, would seem to set up an ethical barrier to > >taking tobacco company funds. > > > >The hard part of this is the secondary question about the nature of > >conglomerates. My personal opinion is that the good folks from Kraft > >Foods had > >very little choice in being gobbled up by Philip Morris when it happened. But > >that was then, and this is now. Give me some evidence that the whole > >corporation will not profit from our research and then maybe we can join > >forces, > >but until that independence is shown, the answer has to be no. > > > >Ruth and others, the money that the tobacco companies lost in court is > >now the > >people's money. Yes, it came from the sale of tobacco, but it is penalty > >money > >for doing so. Yes, if you must see it that way, it is a laundry, but it is a > >public laundry and specifically designed to remove the incentive for companies > >that abuse the public trust. > > > >Chuck, we all appreciate your good comments here, and we also understand that > >the Commonwealth is still a tobacco state and beset with enormous financial > >difficulties. The point is that the question was about tobacco, not > >religion or > >any other kind of affiliation or association. Tobacco is a known and serious > >health hazard, tobacco companies seem not to care, and suggestions or > >implications to the contrary would be more appropriate on the astrology > >listserv. > > > >Finally, I am really surprised at the ethical naivete of most of the > >respondants > >to Tom's question. The question was fairly put, discrete, and amenable to a > >straighforward answer. Tom did not ask for your theology or your maundering > >estimates of the implications for the law. These are matters of practice and, > >in this case, the practice of suborning the activities of tobacco companies. > > > >Jim Brett > > > > > >"Herbert B. Chermside" wrote: > > > > > No such policy > > > > > > My personal opinion only: It is not appropriate for an institution to > > > restrict the areas of research NOR the nature of sponsors, beyond > > > restrictions externally imposed. I think it proper to forego funding from > > > some sponsors who attempt to impose their social agendas through their > > > compliance restrictions. > > > > > > Suppose some sponsors refused to support those who received support from > > > Muslims, or Jews, or Christians.... > > > > > > University MUST take all steps possible to remain objective and impartial. > > > > > > Chuck > > > ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ======================================================================
