Smoke gets in UC's eyes

San Francisco Chronicle 5/14/07

The mighty sword of "academic freedom" was wielded last week to defend the ability of tobacco companies to fund research at the University of California.

In this instance, the argument is absurd.

The tobacco industry has proved it is not looking for rigorous, independent, peer-reviewed research when it bankrolls projects at the nation's great universities. Its motives are transparently sinister, to "undermine independent research, to fund research designed and controlled to generate industry favorable results and to suppress adverse research results." Those words were from a federal court ruling last year that found the tobacco industry had engaged in racketeering -- and that enterprise is continuing, the court warned.

It might seem that no self-respecting institution would want to be a partner in crime with an industry with such demonstrated contempt for the idea of academic freedom, especially when the bottom line is to assuage would-be consumers' concerns about a product that will bring them disease and premature death. Indeed, the research and teaching institutions that refuse tobacco money for just those reasons include some of the most respected names in medicine: Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, the University of Texas.

Regrettably, UC's assembly of the faculty Academic Senate was unwilling to take a stand and declare that "racketeering" is not a legitimate expression of "academic freedom." It voted 43-4 last week to continue allowing the acceptance of tobacco money at the University of California, despite strong objections from certain leaders at UCSF, where they know a little something about the industry's motives and they see the physiological effects of tobacco.

No one is suggesting that UC professors should be prevented from doing research that might challenge the well-established science that has concluded that tobacco kills -- and professors should be free to express their views on this and any other subject, no matter how unconventional or unpopular. The issue here is whether to accept industry money.

A great university should choose its partners widely, but also wisely. Racketeering is simply incompatible with the mission of the University of California.