Tobacco funds cause friction at University

Motion to ban funds ineffective

[Editor's note, September 15, 2009, 4:34 p.m.: Philip Morris International was mentioned as the owner of U.S. Smokeless Tobacco in the original version of this story. U.S. Smokeless Tobacco is in fact owned by Philip Morris USA, former parent company of PMI. The two groups split in 2008, and since share no associations with one another. The Gateway regrets the error.]

An anti-tobacco student group based in Toronto has called for an all-out boycott on involvement with the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health (SPH) because of a tobacco-industry-funded researcher and his attempt to affect the composition of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Tobacco Act.

The anti-tobacco group, called Education Bringing Youth Tobacco Truths (E-butt) identified a letter from SPH Associate Professor Carl Phillips to the House of Commons Health Committee on June 10, 2009, as unethical based on his failure to disclose his reception of funds totalling $1.5 million from U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company, now owned by Philip Morris USA.

E-butt has demanded the SPH issue a statement distancing itself from Phillip’s comments, and condemning both his use of SPH letterhead and failure to disclose his associations with the tobacco industry.

Phillips wrote the letter asking the House of Commons to exempt what he calls “low-risk nicotine sources,” such as Snus, Skoal, and chewing tobacco, including flavoured tobacco products, from the effects of Bill C-32, which is primarily purposed to protect the health of Canadians and “protect young persons and others from inducements to use tobacco products.”

A motion submitted in the SPH’s Faculty Council on May 25, 2007 by Duncan Saunders, Chair of the Department of Public Health Sciences, effectively banned funding from the tobacco industry within the SPH, a move that follows a near-global protocol in the health industry.

Such restrictions have been widely adopted in developed countries because of a longstanding history of deception on the part of the tobacco industry when it comes to properly reporting findings and conducting proper scientific experimentation, explained Saunders.

But according to Saunders, what Phillips did was still within the restrictions set out two years ago at Faculty Council. Faculty Council resolutions are not legally binding and therefore cannot alter the terms of any existing contract.

Additionally, grandfathering was supported in the Faculty Council to avoid infringing on the academic freedom of those already supported by tobacco industry funding, such as in the case of Phillips.

“The motion doesn’t apply to Phillips’ research because of the grandfathering stipulation in the motion. He cannot receive future funding [from the tobacco industry], but has not actually broken any of the motion,” he said.

But that explanation has not placated E-butt or its Executive Director Tyler Ward, a political science and ethics undergraduate at the University of Toronto.

“Every single scientific authority in the world who is not financed by the tobacco industry disagrees with his findings, including the World Health Organization, the U.S. Surgeon General and Health Canada,” he said.

“So what he is doing is creating junk science paid for by the tobacco industry to mislead the public.”

But as Colin Soskolne, a professor with the SPH, explained, Phillips has every right to try and influence the makeup of Bill C-32, and it would defy the principle of academic freedom to restrict him from doing so. He also condemns E-butt’s boycott.

Soskolne was, however, less understanding of the way in which Phillips approached the House.

“In academia, one normally discloses any potential conflicts of interest, and when Phillips sent his letter, he didn’t,” Soskolne said.

According to Ward, however, the concern over academic freedom should not be held in higher regard than concerns of public safety.

Also irking E-butt is the fact that Phillips sent his recommendation on SPH letterhead, which could, according to Ward, lead to the misconception that his suggestions were a public statement from the SPH.

But Soskolne again deflated E-butt’s accusations, and said that it’s common practice for researchers to use institutional letterhead in any correspondences.

“It’s unfortunate that the recipient may not know this,” he said. “But such a letter is never a formal position of the SPH. Of course, any academic signing such as a letter ought, in my view, to make it clear that it is their personal position [...] especially when they are in conflict with SPH policy,” he said.

“But anyone receiving a letter like this, especially at the House of Commons, ought to know it could be an obscure academic view.”

In the meantime, the issue seems to have distilled to one of academic freedom: always a careful balancing act within the health industry.

“Public health researcher practice is not a place for the faint of heart,” Soskolne explained. “In public health, it is our responsibility to be engaged with challenges and conflicts of this precise nature that we are addressing full on.”

The Gateway attempted to contact Phillips via email and telephone, but as of press time, he was unavailable for comment.