EARLIER this month, the WorldHealth Organization warned thattobacco could claim one billion lives by the end of the century if foreign governments do not significantly improve their efforts to curb cigarette use. While smoking has decreased? in the United States in recent years, consumption abroad is following a different pattern with potentially disastrous results. Ironically, the WHO warning comes almost exactly a year after the University announced it would accept a $25 million gift from a major culprit: Richmond-based Philip Morris USA, which designated $20 million for the purpose of medical research into anti-smoking programs.
Given WHO estimates reported in the Wall Street Journal that by 2030 about 80-percent of premature tobacco-related deaths will occur in "low- and middle-income nations, which are least equipped to deal with the financial, health and social consequences of tobacco-related illness," perhaps this might be a good time to step back and reexamine the University's relationship to Philip Morris as the company? aggressively pushes its products abroad. Though there may not be anything wrong with accepting the research money, the University should be very conscious of its role as a pawn in Philip Morris' larger PR scheme.
The WHO announcement comes a week after Philip Morris International split off from its domestic partner to become an independent entity. According to the Wall Street Journal, this move will "free the tobacco giant's international operations of legal and public-relations headaches in the U.S. that have hindered its growth" and will leave the new entity "exempt from U.S. tobacco regulations and out of reach of American litigators. Importantly, its practices would no longer be constrained by American public opinion, paving the way for broad product experimentation." Given these actions it is impossible to believe Philip Morris legitimately has any interest in reducing the harm done by its products.?
Two major criticisms have been leveled at universities for accepting research money from the tobacco industry, both of which carry a lot of weight for different reasons. First, that tobacco money will influence research and second, that it will inevitably improve the public relations image of the tobacco company. The issue was hotly debated by state schools in California last year and, according to the New York Times, tobacco money has been outright rejected by at least eight other schools including -- right down tobacco road -- the University of North Carolina.
When the University accepted the "gift" last year, University Provost Arthur Garson, then dean of the University's School of Medicine, defended the decision in an article in "Inside Higher Education" pointing out that, "The job is to do something really important -- it's about stopping children from smoking, or not even letting them start." He adds "If we can stop kids from starting to smoke, I don't care whether Philip Morris gets PR for it or we get PR for it. If on the basis of this program, children don't smoke, then we have succeeded, period." A year later, Garson maintained in an e-mail, "We have had no surprises in the year since the announcement ... As we have agreed upon, we will have both an internal and external advisory group to oversee the research." But even if the money will not influence research in any way, there is little controversy about the fact that it will improve Philip Morris' public relations image, and this is a very serious problem in light of the company's recent decision to make its international division unaccountable to pretty much everyone.
And yet for the University -- assuming research remains independent of Philip Morris -- the project remains defensible in spite of PMI's recent actions. In fact, Garson hit the nail right on the head. I can't think of a legitimate reason to argue against it: Philip Morris is stopping kids from smoking and, as they boast on their Web site with a hint of black comedy, they are actually "searching for ways to reduce the health risks of smoking." Simply put, in spite of everything, we're still tragically better off with their help than without it. And that's the saddest thing of all.
Meanwhile, PMI moves abroad to plunder -- often accountable only to its holy shareholders -- and its clear that corporate social responsibility programs? at home are intended only to quell dissent and cultivate a reasonable public image. The University is left as a mouse inside a sort of laboratory experiment for the tobacco industry about what to do when they finally figure it out and hold you accountable. If the University's efforts to stop children from smoking depend on our acceptance of their "charity" --while they simultaneously pour money into shameless acts abroad -- then we are simply pawns of their system. The WHO report reminds us of just what kind of system that is.
Paul Berry is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Without sorrow
By Jackie Bond | 12 hours agoAs difficult as college was, I did not drop out, I did not give up on myself or my friends in times of need and I shared my voice at every opportunity. And that is something worth celebrating.
PARTING SHOT: The myth of the “two Universities”
By Dan Freed | 16 hours agoThere’s a reason basketball has a color commentator in addition to play-by-play commentary — and it is the same reason why Opinion sections exist.
PARTING SHOT: Work that never felt like work
By Leon Arceo | YesterdayWhenever I list the titles I held during my time at the paper, I’m often met with surprise — or even sympathy — for taking on so much. But the truth is, it never felt like a burden.
