The Gateway | Monday, 14 November, 2005

Where there's smoke, there's questionable funding

Iris Tse

It was recently announced that the University of Alberta has approved a $1.5 million research grant from the US Smokeless Tobacco Company (USSTC) for a new faculty member, Dr Carl Phillips. While this is only the latest addition in a series of controversial partnerships on campus that includes the infamous diamond giant De Beers and Coca-Cola, this particular grant from the makers of Copenhagen, Skoal and other brands of chewing tobacco still raises many eyebrows.

Though the grant is described as an “unrestricted gift” and that USSTC “did not influence the content or see the study results” of Phillips’ latest publication, it’s still difficult to believe that the money doesn’t come with strings or expectations. It’s especially disconcerting when Phillips, an associate professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences, believes that chewing tobacco is a safe substitute for smoking. He also claims that oral cancer, the disease frequently associated with chewing tobacco, is “mostly a myth.” A quick search of available scientific journals has shown that Phillips is a minority in this opinion.

To this point in history, there have been only three means of avoiding smoking-related lung cancer: never starting to smoke, quitting, and avoiding smoky environments. However, what Philips is trying to suggest is that there is a fourth choice—smokeless products, like chewing tobacco—and that these products are a less toxic alternative for smokers who cannot, or will not, quit.

This is a highly controversial position, as the latest research shows that smokeless tobacco is linked to a compromised antioxidant defence system, and long-term inflammation of the liver, lung and kidneys. Also, smokeless tobacco is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a carcinogen, causing pancreatic cancer in addition to oral cancer. Most research indicates that smokeless tobacco is hardly a harmless substitute, especially when one considers that there are safer and better means to quit smoking. In addition, the perceived “safety” of these smokeless products might pursue some smokers to switch to other forms of tobacco consumption in lieu of quitting altogether, thus causing more harm than good.

Understandably, the validity of Phillips’ claim is considered dubious. Many health experts on campus are ready to attack Phillips’ position, including U of A dentistry professor Steve Patterson. But the biggest problem in this scenario isn’t the nature or the results of Phillips’ research on smokeless tobacco—it’s that his research is funded by a tobacco company.

As an immunology student with some laboratory background, I clearly understand that scientific innovation can’t happen without the aid of private and public funding. There’s little doubt that much research would cease if there were no money to purchase sophisticated instruments or disposable Eppendorf tubes. But that still doesn’t mean scientists are free to accept whatever money comes their way.

Unlike many public health departments at other universities, such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins, the U of A doesn’t have a policy in place that prohibits grants from tobacco companies. In addition, the ethics board of the University is satisfied with the perimeters of Phillips’ grant. But perhaps the University should seriously reconsider its existing policy and guidelines.

I don’t doubt that Phillips, who received his PhD from Harvard University, is an educated and intelligent scientist, and I don’t question his methods of research. But funding from controversial companies such as the USSTC or advocacy groups can also seriously undermine the position and professionalism of the researcher. The possibility of conflict of interest will constantly overshadow the validity of the research, and may cause more damage than harm on the researcher’s findings. Besides, universities have no business accepting research grants from an industry that has for decades distorted and manipulated research to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke.

Because of this, the money can hardly be considered as no strings attached.

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


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