The Gateway | Monday, 21 November, 2005

Tse's arguments go up in smoke

Brad Rodu

I am a professor of medicine and hold an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research at the University of Louisville. As a recipient of university-based financial support from the United States Smokeless Tobacco Company for over six years, I would like to comment on Iris Tse’s condemnation of the University’s decision to accept USSTC grant support (Re: Where there’s smoke, there’s questionable funding,” 15 November).

Tse’s “quick search of available scientific journals,” apparently left gaps in her knowledge about tobacco risk. Britain’s Royal College of Physicians, one of the world’s most prestigious medical societies, issued a report stating that “[smokeless] tobacco is on the order of 10-1,000 times less hazardous than smoking, depending on the product.” The report continued with a bolder statement that smokeless tobacco (SLT) manufacturers might market their products “as a ‘harm reduction’ option for nicotine users, and they may find support for that in the public health community.”

Apparently Tse’s “quick search” did not find a US National Cancer Institute-funded study (Tse and others will be happy with that source) reporting that: “[SLT] products pose a substantially lower risk to the user than do conventional cigarettes. This finding raises ethical questions concerning whether it is inappropriate and misleading for government officials or public health experts to characterize [SLT] products as comparably dangerous with cigarette smoking.”

Tse writes that “universities have no business accepting research grants from an industry that has for decades distorted and manipulated research about the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke.” Her remark is misinformed. USSTC manufactures only SLT; their products eliminate the “dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke.”

Tse’s rejection of funding she finds distasteful, a tactic favored by activists aggressively pursuing social agendas, places the independence of university faculty and research programs at risk. Tse already has a list of three companies she dislikes: USSTC, de Beers and Coca Cola. Next in line are activists who see the devil’s work at big oil producers, alcohol manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies making birth control medications and food companies (obesity: the next crusade). I hope Tse completes her immunology degree before animal rights activists condemn the university for conducting research on animals—and accepting research support from any company that does.

Faculty members at your institution are currently free to pursue research regarding all legitimate subjects, and pursue research funding from all legitimate sources. Not just sources that Tse and others opine to be questionable. The University of Alberta motto, “Quaecumque vera” (Whatsoever things are true), reflects an important mission that must not be threatened by the whims of social and political activism.

Wanna respond? Send your feedback to gateway@gateway.ualberta.ca.


	© 2002-2004 Gateway Student Journalism Society - All rights reserved \| This site uses valid CSS