UK universities agree protocol for tobacco company funding
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
UK universities and the charity Cancer Research UK have signed a joint protocol on good practice for universities on the issue of funding of research by the tobacco industry.
The joint protocol acknowledges that it is up to individual universities to decide what research funds to accept, when to accept or reject an offer of funds, and what work should take place in its facilities. It agrees, however, that universities "will consider carefully" whether to accept funding from any source "if to do so would be potentially detrimental to their reputation." In a related protocol, Code of Practice on Tobacco Industry Funding to Universities, Cancer Research UK noted that a university's ties with the tobacco industry would be an important factor in decision making by Cancer Research UK when it is considering awarding major new research funding.
Jean King, director of tobacco control with Cancer Research UK, said: "It is vital that Cancer Research UK takes a strong stance against the tobacco industry. Nobody should forget that a tobacco company's aim is to sell its product and make profit. This is helped by making its product as socially palatable as possible."
Diana Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK—which represents all UK universities and some higher education colleges that developed the protocol with Cancer Research UK—added: "UK universities would not wish to undertake activities that compromise the integrity or independence of their work."
The protocol was welcomed at an international level. Dr Derek Yach, an executive director of the World Health Organization, said: "Universities worldwide should consider following the lead shown by Cancer Research UK and all adopt similar codes that protect the integrity of science against the tobacco industry."
David Simpson, director of the International Agency on Tobacco and Health, said: "Documents from tobacco companies have revealed that they have fudged scientific evidence, which is completely alien to academic behaviour. They are now trying to buy respectability by funding social projects and research in prestigious universities, but their underlying aim has to be to gain commercial advantage."
The issue of funding of university research by the tobacco industry has been a matter of debate for some time. In 2001, Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ, resigned from his position as professor of medical journalism at the University of Nottingham after it accepted ￡3.8m ($7m; 5.7m) from British American Tobacco (BAT) to fund an international centre for the study of corporate responsibility ( BMJ 2001;322: 1200).(Susan Mayor)
The joint protocol acknowledges that it is up to individual universities to decide what research funds to accept, when to accept or reject an offer of funds, and what work should take place in its facilities. It agrees, however, that universities "will consider carefully" whether to accept funding from any source "if to do so would be potentially detrimental to their reputation." In a related protocol, Code of Practice on Tobacco Industry Funding to Universities, Cancer Research UK noted that a university's ties with the tobacco industry would be an important factor in decision making by Cancer Research UK when it is considering awarding major new research funding.
Jean King, director of tobacco control with Cancer Research UK, said: "It is vital that Cancer Research UK takes a strong stance against the tobacco industry. Nobody should forget that a tobacco company's aim is to sell its product and make profit. This is helped by making its product as socially palatable as possible."
Diana Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK—which represents all UK universities and some higher education colleges that developed the protocol with Cancer Research UK—added: "UK universities would not wish to undertake activities that compromise the integrity or independence of their work."
The protocol was welcomed at an international level. Dr Derek Yach, an executive director of the World Health Organization, said: "Universities worldwide should consider following the lead shown by Cancer Research UK and all adopt similar codes that protect the integrity of science against the tobacco industry."
David Simpson, director of the International Agency on Tobacco and Health, said: "Documents from tobacco companies have revealed that they have fudged scientific evidence, which is completely alien to academic behaviour. They are now trying to buy respectability by funding social projects and research in prestigious universities, but their underlying aim has to be to gain commercial advantage."
The issue of funding of university research by the tobacco industry has been a matter of debate for some time. In 2001, Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ, resigned from his position as professor of medical journalism at the University of Nottingham after it accepted ￡3.8m ($7m; 5.7m) from British American Tobacco (BAT) to fund an international centre for the study of corporate responsibility ( BMJ 2001;322: 1200).(Susan Mayor)