• 6/20/2007
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • Keith Gerein
  • Edmonton Journal (www.canada.com/edmontonjournal)

Academic researchers who receive funding from the tobacco industry are no longer welcome at the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health.

Members of the school’s faculty council voted overwhelmingly in favour of that directive Friday, declaring their opposition to grants like the $1.5-million US deal accepted by one of their colleagues.

“The issue here is a perception of a conflict of interest with the mission of the school of public health,” said Roger Palmer, the school’s dean.

The school is the third group on campus to approve a tobacco funding ban, and it actually employs a researcher who has received money from such companies.

Carl Phillips, a health policy expert, has been at the centre of the controversy since he came to the U of A in 2005 with a lucrative, five-year grant from the makers of smokeless tobacco brands Skoal and Copenhagen. The focus of his research is to examine the health effects of chewing tobacco compared with smoking.

Some see the issue as one of academic freedom, a principle that asserts scholars should have the ability to pursue projects of their choice and unpopular causes, without fear of losing income or job promotions.

Others see the issue in terms of institutional integrity. They suggest that restricting such freedom is justifiable in certain cases, especially instances when the values of higher learning are seen to be tainted.

“Tobacco is uniquely hazardous to human health and the industry has a history of unethical behavior in terms of restricting information to the public on how dangerous their product is,” said Palmer, who voted to support the funding ban. The dean was among 19 council members who did so, compared with one vote against and six abstentions.

“For a school of public health to be associated in any way with tobacco industry was, for me, personally unacceptable.”

Phillips could not be reached for an interview. He released a statement saying, “In the last few months, two of North America’s most respected universities, the University of California and Stanford, considered similar measures and voted overwhelmingly in favour of academic freedom and against a funding ban,” he said.

“But the School of Public Health chose to give in to outside political pressure and tell the world that it does not trust the university’s ethics review process or its own faculty to guard research integrity.”

Phillips has said previously that his study is protected from the influence of the tobacco companies. His research indicates that chewing tobacco is a safer alternative to smoking, and could be used as part of a “harm reduction” strategy for diehard nicotine addicts.

Other have said Phillips’s arguments are misleading, insisting there are better ways to treat addiction, such as through nicotine patches or gum.

“There is no question that this research is intended to assist with tobacco marketing,” said Les Hagen, director of the advocacy group Action on Smoking and Health.

The council’s vote will not affect the remainder of Phillips’s project, but it could put pressure on the institution’s administration to adopt a similar policy university-wide.