IN FOUR weeks鈥� time, the Cancer Research Campaign faces a crucial decision.
Every year the charity gives about 拢40 million to scientific research in
the search for new ways of combating cancer. Last year, the University of
Cambridge received 拢2.25 million of that, more than any other university.
But the CRC now has a dilemma.
Cambridge is a world leader in many types of cancer research. But last month
the university took 拢1.5 million from BAT Industries. BAT Industries owns
British American Tobacco, the world鈥檚 second largest manufacturer of tobacco
products. And smoking tobacco causes lung cancer, which kills 33 000 people in
Britain a year.
BAT鈥檚 donation to Cambridge has few strings attached. There will be no brand
name, no fanfare and absolutely no interference by BAT in the academic research.
All BAT wanted was to name a chair in the International Studies department in
honour of its recently retired chairman, Patrick Sheehy. BAT also wanted to
nominate a few trustees on the selection board for six new international
relations studentships that were created at the same time as the chair.
Cambridge took the money.
Advertisement
Tobacco gold
On 26 September, the CRC鈥檚 council must decide the future of its relationship
with Cambridge. Tobacco kills about 3 million people a year around the world.
So, does the university鈥檚 acceptance of tobacco gold make it a suitable
collaborator in the fight against cancer? The CRC council has a number of
options, of which three have been widely canvassed. First, it could continue to
fund research at Cambridge. After all, the CRC wants to fund the best research.
And the peer review process puts Cambridge top of the list for the research the
CRC funds at the university.
Secondly, the CRC could signal its disapproval by continuing to fund research
but refusing to finance big capital projects. The third option is to sever all
links with Cambridge. In this case, the CRC would wind up its activities at
Cambridge and take the money elsewhere.
Every top-ranked research university in Britain will take note of the CRC
decision. Money from blue-chip charities, such as the CRC, is very attractive.
Along with the money, comes prestige, a more favourable rating by other
charities that fund research and even extra points in the research assessment
exercise, which determines how big a university鈥檚 research grant will be.
If the CRC does not penalise Cambridge for taking BAT鈥檚 money, universities
might interpret it as a nod of acquiescence. 鈥淏ut if the CRC pulled out,鈥� says
Simon Jones, head of grants administration at University College London, 鈥渘o one
else would touch tobacco money.鈥�
Cambridge was not setting a precedent when it accepted BAT鈥檚 money. There are
already at least nine postgraduate studentships sponsored by BAT at the
university. Sheehy and BAT鈥檚 money helped to rescue the Royal Commonwealth
Society Library which was moved from London to Cambridge three years ago.
Cambridge is not alone in taking tobacco money. The University of Bristol,
for example, would not exist but for riches donated back in 1908 by the local
tobacco magnate Henry Overton Wills. The university鈥檚 Wills Physics
Laboratory鈥攚hich has produced half a dozen Nobel prizewinners鈥攚as
paid for by tobacco money.
In the US, the tobacco industry is even more active in financing research.
Tobacco built Duke University in North Carolina. The university鈥檚 primary
endowment is still the mountain of money left by its founder, James Duke, who
formed the American Tobacco Company. More than half of all medical schools take
tobacco industry money, according to a survey carried out by the American
Medical Association.
There is no hint that tobacco funds are drying up. A brand new centre for
molecular sciences in La Jolla, California, is in the process of being set up,
entirely funded by Philip Morris. It will be headed by the eminent molecular
biologist Sydney Brenner, and has attracted the biggest single grant made by a
tobacco company in support of scientific research鈥�$15 million
spread over 15 years.
In Britain, the question of whether to accept tobacco money exploded in the
early 1980s. In 1982, the tobacco industry thwarted the threat of a legal ban on
advertising. As part of a deal with the then health minister Kenneth Clarke, the
tobacco industry set up the Health Promotion Research Trust. The trust had
拢11 million of the tobacco money to look at research into health
promotion. But the industry explicitly barred the trust from financing any study
of the effects of smoking.
The then Health Education Council withheld grants from academics who took the
HPRT鈥檚 money. The British Medical Association urged all medics to stay away from
the money.
Not everyone did. At least 14 out of the 17 universities in the 鈥淩ussell
group鈥�, an elite group of universities that includes Cambridge and Oxford as
well as London鈥檚 University College, have accepted tobacco money for research at
one time over the past decade. Some researchers fretted over the source; others
were blissfully unaware.
More than 20 grants were made to medical schools and
hospitals. Of the Russell Group, only the University of Glasgow, Imperial
College and the London School of Economics did not take money from the HPRT pot.
Cambridge was the trust鈥檚 biggest single recipient, taking more than 拢2
million in 19 separate grants.
Yet the HPRT has not been a success. Researchers have had qualms about taking
the tobacco industry鈥檚 money. Some of its recipients, such as Hilary Rose of the
University of Bradford, were persuaded by colleagues to return HPRT grants.
The HPRT has just issued its final annual report and is being wound up,
partly because of the hostility it faced, admits the chairman, Lord Butterfield.
The only two medical trustees, apart from Butterfield himself, resigned in the
trust鈥檚 early days.
Uncomfortable truths
Some academics criticise the puritanism of refusing tobacco money. The test,
says Don Carleton, a spokesman for the University of Bristol, is whether a
university can pursue its research without interference. 鈥淲e must fearlessly
report the truth as we find it,鈥� says Carleton, 鈥渆ven if it is uncomfortable to
the funders.鈥� And certainly most tobacco industry research grants in the US
state that all the results must be published.
However, collaboration with a prestigious university such as Cambridge can
buy a tobacco company 鈥渋nnocence by association鈥�, says Kenneth Warner, a health
economist at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Warner was an expert
witness in a recent case between a smoker and American Tobacco. As part of its
defence, the tobacco company pointed out that it had funded research at a number
of universities鈥攁long with the National Cancer Institute and the American
Cancer Society. 鈥淭hey were implying that these organisations were all working to
answer questions about the relationship of smoking and disease,鈥� he says.
Critics of the Cambridge decision think the university has been hoodwinked by
a cunning marketing ploy. For a small donation鈥斅�1.5 million from its
record 1995 profits of 拢1.5 billion鈥擝AT will be associated with the
name and credibility of one of Britain鈥檚 top universities. It will have a
prestigious chair named after a man whose international career involved boosting
cigarette exports, notably to Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia and the West Indies.
As the market for cigarettes in the developed world stagnates, contacts and
influence in the developing world will be all the more important, says Richard
Peto, an epidemiologist with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 鈥淭hese companies
are not spending this money by mistake,鈥� he says. As governments clamp down on
advertising, the tobacco industry is increasingly looking to sponsorship to keep
its products in the public eye. The tobacco industry spends about 拢70
million every year in Britain on advertising and some 拢30 million on
promotion, according to the pressure group Action on Smoking and Health.
Promotion soars
Promotion has taken off in the US in the past 20 years. While tobacco
advertising has remained constant at around $500 million a year, spending
on promotion has soared鈥攖o more than $5 billion a year. The same
trend could easily be repeated in Britain.
One of the pledges in the Labour Party鈥檚 manifesto is to ban tobacco
advertising. But the party has quietly dropped the promise it made in 1994 to
ban promotion as well. If Labour wins the next general election and bars
advertising, the tobacco industry鈥檚 advertising funds are likely to be diverted
into the budget for promotions. But a ban on 鈥減romotions鈥� would not have
affected Cambridge, says Kevin Barron, a Labour health spokesman, since only the
pushing of brand names would be banned. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a difference between Benson
& Hedges cricket and a Sheehy chair,鈥� he says.
Tobacco sponsorship has already been turning up in some unlikely places. One
British secondary school, the Macmillan City Technology College in
Middlesborough, has received about 拢2 million from BAT. Most of this money
was used to build and equip the school. In June, another 拢100 000 from BAT
was awarded to the Archbishop Michael Ramsey School, a technology college in
Southwark, as part of a government initiative to persuade industry to help fund
education. The government鈥檚 own literature makes clear what is in it for BAT:
鈥淚nvestment in local education raises the sponsor鈥檚 profile.鈥�
Sponsorship is a soft target for the tobacco companies鈥攁nd there is no
shortage of worthy causes. The tobacco companies know their largesse in funding
not just education and research but also arts and sporting events is good public
relations. And that is something the tobacco companies desperately need.
鈥淏ritish American Tobacco kill half their regular customers,鈥� says Peto, 鈥渟o
they have to spend a lot of money buying goodwill.鈥�