Rapid Responses to:

EDUCATION AND DEBATE: Richard Smith and Colin Campbell For and against: Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money? • For • Against BMJ 2001; 322: 1118-1119 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

The silence of Sir Colin

Simon Chapman   (4 May 2001)

Means as Pure as the End

B M Hegde   (6 May 2001)

More Sanctimonious Claptrap

William Westlake   (6 May 2001)

Smith should not resign

A J Hedley   (8 May 2001)

missing the point

Philip Machanick   (8 May 2001)

Thieves and fences belong together

Trudy Prins   (8 May 2001)

Cause more trouble, Richard!

Peter Morrell   (9 May 2001)

Re: More Sanctimonious Claptrap

Colin Richardson   (9 May 2001)

Robin Hood Revisited

Wasim Maziak   (9 May 2001)

Moral Vacuity of Tobacco Money

Samuel Shortt   (10 May 2001)

Response to last week's debate 'Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money'

Gordon McVie   (10 May 2001)

Compartmentalized Ethics

Michael Taler   (11 May 2001)

Centre's name determines the response

Frederic Bass   (19 May 2001)

A Tainted University

Donald T Elmore   (13 June 2001)

Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money?

Colin Durnin   (20 June 2001)

The silence of Sir Colin 4 May 2001
Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health University of Sydney Send response to journal: Re: The silence of Sir Colin	Prior to publishing our editorial on "the ethics of the cash register" [1], I wrote privately to Nottingham University's chancellor, Sir Colin Campbell, inviting him to indicate whether there were any sources of funding from which his University would decline to accept funding. I named several perfectly legal sources such as a wealthy Nazi revisionist, a pornographer specialising in casting poverty stricken villagers from the third world in his films. And so on (see http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7275/DC2). He replied with a standard letter that failed to engage with any of the questions I had asked. He now writes in the BMJ that his university "welcome(s) diverse sources of funding". So I ask Sir Colin again, would he please not be coy, but explain for all our benefit, just where -- if at all -- Nottingham University draws the line? 1. Chapman S, Shatenstein S. The ethics of the cash register: taking tobacco industry research dollars. Tobacco Control 2001;10:1-2.
Means as Pure as the End 6 May 2001
B M Hegde, Vice Chancellor Manipal-India Send response to journal: Re: Means as Pure as the End	Dear Sir, I am shocked and saddened to note that a respectable University has accepted tobacco money. No industry would give money without strings attached, and in this case respectability. Tobacco tax and toabcco industry's capacity to employ people should not lessen the horror of toabbaco's capacity to kill and disable people. As a doctor for four decades I have come to one opinion that tobacco is man's worst enemy! Studies have shown that the economy would be betetr off if tobacco money is to be redeployed in other areas. All the advances in medical technology would not match the power of tobacco smoke.The cancer is spreading among the young in many countries who get hooked on early in life, thanks to the ingenious advertising tactics! Education is that process which prepares humanbeings to act "justly, skillfully, and magnanimously" under all circumstances of peace and war. Educational bodies can never have a gulf between their practice and precept. Means should be as pure as their goal. bmhegde
More Sanctimonious Claptrap 6 May 2001
William Westlake, Consultant Ophthalmologist Truro Send response to journal: Re: More Sanctimonious Claptrap	Sir, Smiths views raise broader issues for all of us. He fails to point out that much of the NHS’s income is generated from taxes on gambling and alcohol as well as tobacco. The states revenues are further swollen with income tax paid by individuals who may not only read pornography but also commit adultery and in some cases even steal. In the light of such shocking knowledge, I feel that by accepting my monthly salary I am giving the Chancellor a respectability that he doesn’t deserve, so return approximately 38% of it to the government. I strongly feel that all other respectable government funded individuals and institutions should do the same. Yours faithfully William Westlake
Smith should not resign 8 May 2001
A J Hedley, Chair Professor University of Hong Kong Send response to journal: Re: Smith should not resign	Colin Campbell's defence of his deal with British American Tobacco clearly fails to convince 82% of the respondents to your survey. This is not surprising given the specious nonsense we were served including the argument about the role of the industry as an employer. I well remember the prompt and cynical moves in years gone by to throw Nottingham's tobacco workers out of their jobs every time there was a modest tax increase and dip in sales. The second question, whether or not Richard Smith should resign, created much greater uncertainty. However given that his presence in the University's calendar is a potential focus and hopefully force for future ethical decision-making, the last thing which the global tobacco control movement needs is for him to leave the campus. Nothing would give the vice chancellor greater satisfaction and Smith's right to enjoin the debate as a member of the university would be lost and any possible effective opposition on campus would be weakened. Yours faithfully, Anthony J Hedley
missing the point 8 May 2001
Philip Machanick, associate professor University of the Witwatersrand Send response to journal: Re: missing the point	Colin Campbell misses the whole point of the ethics issue. It may be true that the donation has been firewalled from medical research but the very title of the centre, containing as it does the words "corporate responsibility" are parodied by the behaviour of the tobacco industry. The funding protocol endorsed by the Cancer Research Campaign cannot be read without considering how else tobacco companies might distort academic ethics by funding inappropriate activities. The whole point about ethics is that being ethical requires judgment calls, not operating to a formula. The fact that Campbell does not understand this is a sad indictment of his own lack of appreciation of the basics of ethical behaviour.
Thieves and fences belong together 8 May 2001
Trudy Prins, managing director The Hague Send response to journal: Re: Thieves and fences belong together	The tobacco industry has asked its strategists to devise ways and means to procure respectability. Funding repectable institutes is one of those strategies. Accepting their money therefore means actively enhancing the realisation of that strategy. Unless that is what the University really wants, the money should not be accepted. Thieves and fences belong together, and so the irony of a deal like this is that it does not lend respectability to the industry, but makes the receiver, the University, seem shady. And who would want to work for such an institute? The question is therefore not: should he remain in his job, but: will he be able to. I think not.
Cause more trouble, Richard! 9 May 2001
Peter Morrell, Hon Research Associate, History of Medicine Staffordshire University, ST4 2DE Send response to journal: Re: Cause more trouble, Richard!	Sir, Richard Smith asks [1] BMJ readers if he should resign as Professor of Medical Journalism at Nottingham University because of the tainted tobacco money with which the university has become associated and that he will carry out whatever the majority decision of his readers is. The answer to this question is obviously 'yes' if he wishes to distance himself from this scandal and so appear as a liberal and ethical person who disapproves of the use of such money in the academic world. By doing so, he would then personally be able to walk away from the problem as a man with a clear conscience. However, thinking along more altruistic lines, we might say that Dr Smith not only serves himself, but also, by default, his readers and the entire profession. On this basis his personal morals must be subordinated to those of a wider dominion of more important interests. For example, if we consider the nature of journalism in general and medical journalism in particular, then we could easily make a case for Dr Smith NOT to resign. Journalism in general would dictate that he should 'keep telling the story' and that would mean staying where he is and continuing to make efforts within the university to counter the policy which has been adopted. It would also involve him in using his position at every opportunity to publicise his views on the matter. Indeed, he should even go out of his way to manufacture such publicity opportunities and cause as much trouble as he can for the tobacco industry and university until they either show him the door or change their policy. That would send a much better message to the world than merely resigning. On the basis of medical journalism in particular, he should also refuse to resign and make as much trouble for this university as possible. If he receives any money from the post, he should be willing to use it to establish an 'anti-tobacco research fund' and invite others - with maximum publicity - to contribute to this fund and to suggest/invite ways in which it might be used to publicise this absurd policy of Nottingham University, counter the claims of the tobacco industry and to fund scholarships to anti-tobacco universities in medical journalism and awards in ethical medical journalism, or any other worthy causes he feels are related to this entire issue. Why not invite BMJ readers to make suggestions on the use of such a fund? There must be numerous ways in which such funds could be used to further add to the shame and embarrassment of Nottingham University, and the tobacco industry and to cast in a good light medical journalism, BMJ and ethical reportage of such issues. One note of caution might, however, be sounded about the importance, or lack of it, of medical journalism: "Insofar as writers in journals have prestige and manage to attract the attention of members of the profession, they may influence some aspects of the technical and ethical standards of a man's practice...but research...points to the conclusion that such influence...is likely to be slight...and...the huge volume of medical sermons seem to have little impact on the everyday clinical practitioner." [2] Even if we go back to the origins of medical journalism itself, another rather sorry and discouraging picture emerges. "the Lancet [was]...the literary arm of the radical medical reformer, Thomas Wakley..." [3]. In those early days, "the Royal Colleges were labelled crafty, intriguing, corrupt, avaricious, cowardly, plundering, rapacious, soul-betraying, dirty-minded bats. Wakley saw nepotism, monopoly, and conspiracy everywhere." [4] No doubt similar words have recently found their way onto the lips of many critics of Nottingham University. To what extent the use of such language ever really changes those people it is directed towards is always open to question. On balance therefore, I would urge Dr Smith to keep his post and cause as much trouble and embarrassment as he can for the university concerned. In this way, he would use his opposition to it to highlight the main issue and keep it in the public eye. Vested interest? I was born in the county of Nottingham Sources [1] For and against: Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money? * For * Against, Richard Smith and Colin Campbell, BMJ 2001; 322: 1118-1119, BMJ 5 May 2001,Volume 322, Issue 7294, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7294/1118 [2] Freidson, Eliot, Profession of Medicine, Dodd Mead, New York, 1975, 198 [3] Berlant, Jeffrey Lionel, Monopoly and Power, Berkeley, Univ. California Press, 1975, 166 [4] Peterson, M Jeanne, The Medical Profession in Mid-Victorian London, Berkeley, Univ. California Press, 1975, 26
Re: More Sanctimonious Claptrap 9 May 2001
Colin Richardson, Director, Adventist Health Ministries, PNG Lae, Papua New Guinea Send response to journal: Re: Re: More Sanctimonious Claptrap	Weslake's letter is both unnecessarily sarcastic and deliberately misleading. He attempts to parallel NHS's income from consolidated taxes with a deliberate choice by Nottingham University to accept major funding from a tobacco industry eager to buy "respectability". Simon Chapman and Stan Shatenstein's article "The ethics of the cash register: taking tobacco research dollars" has already dealt with this matter quite well. To equate his accepting a salary from the government's consolidated revenue with a chosen course of accepting money from the tobacco industry is either naive, or a deliberate smokescreen for the pro-tobacco lobby. In any case, I am sure Weslake already returns 38% or more of his NHS funded salary to the Chancellor in income taxes, so he can continue to accept his dubiously-funded salary with a clear conscience!
Robin Hood Revisited 9 May 2001
Wasim Maziak, Georg Forster Fellow Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Muenster, Germany Send response to journal: Re: Robin Hood Revisited	The response of Sir Colin Campbell of Nottingham University to BMJ editor’s argument about Nottingham University accepting funds from BAT is indeed intriguing [1]. Not only that he tries to legitimize his University’s decision, but he also tries to legitimize the whole tobacco industry by reminding us of jobs and revenues generated by it. First, for a scientific rebuttal of Sir Campbell’s economic fallacy I refer the reader to the relevant World Bank’s report [2]. But what surprises me most from a man of his status is the Robin Hood mentality; it is OK to steel money from the rich as long as you give them to the poor, and Nottingham University’s “diversification” of their funding resources is justified as long as they are going to use it for pure scientific purposes. Accordingly, the guns industry is also providing jobs and revenues, and if on top of that they start to fund community and scientific ventures, this is the ultimate corporate social responsibility. He goes on to rearticulate the tobacco’s industry pathetic free personal choice argument, which is by the way very popular also among the guns industry. How would Sir Campbell react to a young child trying to imitate superman by jumping from the window. Well a tobacco addict is as free as this child can be, and all public health then can be looked at as an infringement on people’s freedom to eat as much as they like, smoke as much as they, and have sex with anyone they like. What about the freedom of non-smokers not to inhale tobacco smoke and to pay for excess healthcare expenses of smokers, since smokers’ healthcare costs on average exceed non smokers in any given year [3]. Let nobody be mistaken, we are not talking here about another potentially risky product. This is the number 1 killer and the number 1 enemy of public health, produced by an extremely powerful and resourceful industry. Their recent attempt to fund distinguished scientists, institutions, and youth programs is just a sample of a chain of strategies being worked out continuously by their think tank, in order to reintegrate within the society and clean their tarnished image. And what could serve them better than funding a Center for Corporate Social Responsibility. It is such an irony that one of the icons of corporate greed could achieve this. Are we that naïve, or Sir Campbell likes to think of us this way. Let me finally sincerely assure Sir Campbell that for years to come not only the output of this center will be treated with suspicion, but the whole scientific image of Nottingham University can be undermined because of this decision. Wasim Maziak PhD Georg Forster Fellow, Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine Muenster, Germany. 1. Richard Smith and Colin Campbell. For and against: Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money? • For • Against. BMJ 2001; 322: 1118-1119. 2. World Bank. Curbing the epidemic: Governments and the economics of tobacco control. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1999. 3. World Bank. The Economics of Tobacco Control; Myths and Facts. Available at http://www-itsweb4.worldbank.org/tobacco/faq.htm, accessed on 8/5/2001.
Moral Vacuity of Tobacco Money 10 May 2001
Samuel Shortt, Director, Queen's Health Policy Research Unit Queen's University, Kingston, Canada Send response to journal: Re: Moral Vacuity of Tobacco Money	Tobacco is a unique commercial product: if used exactly as intended by the manufacturer, it leads assuredly to morbidity and, likely, to accelerated mortality. Viewed in light of this terribly obvious fact, profits made by the industry can not be seen as other than profoundly tainted. Sponsors of sporting or artistic events who consider accepting tobacco money must weigh this knowledge against the possibility of having to forgo an event for lack of funds. To choose the latter over the former is morally indefensible: pleasure can not be built on the backs of the addicted, sick and dying. This is precisely the ethical fault-line, as Richard Smith so succinctly points out, that the University of Nottingham has ignored. The irony that their obscene funds will be used to create a centre concerned with “social responsibility” can be lost on no one. With shame, the University should apologize to the millions of Britons addicted to tobacco, especially those already afflicted with COPD or lung cancer, and return the money.
Response to last week's debate 'Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money' 10 May 2001
Gordon McVie, Director General, The Cancer Research Campaign The Cancer Research Campaign Send response to journal: Re: Response to last week's debate 'Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money'	Dear Sir In last week’s debate on whether Nottingham University should give back its tobacco money, Richard Smith asserts that The Cancer Research Campaign (CRC) says that it's alright for the university to take BAT's money, and comments that this is a curious position for us (BMJ 2001;322:1118-9). The explanation of his misconception is simple: Richard has unwittingly repeated Nottingham University's own erroneous beliefs. The Cancer Research Campaign is strongly opposed to Nottingham University taking the money, and despite several protests from us, the university continues to insist that the funds are in line with our code of practice on tobacco funding. Your readers may wish to ask themselves who is the better judge of this - the cancer organisation that pioneered the code, or those bankrolled by an industry whose products cause a third of British cancer deaths. To find out more about The Cancer Research Campaign’s code of practice on tobacco funding log on to: http://www.crc.org.uk/cancer/Aboutcan_red4_7.html Yours sincerely, Professor Gordon McVie Director General The Cancer Research Campaign
Compartmentalized Ethics 11 May 2001
Michael Taler, Senior Lecturer (in computing) Auckland University of Technology Send response to journal: Re: Compartmentalized Ethics	I believe that the University should return the funds. I believe that Richard Smith should not resign. I think he would have more influence as a staff member. His sacrifice would only serve to silence him. I am intrigued at the arguments put forward by Colin Campbell. -More than a 100 million people depend on the tobacco industry.- Quite a few milliom people depend on crime, say narcotics. I would go so far as to ask the question, which country is the largest tobacco producer and exporter in the world? -Many billions of taxes are collected from the industry. These go to support the social services of various nations.- This is true. I would like to ask what is the cost incurred by nations in overcoming the ills caused by smoking? I would venture to say it exceeds the tax earnings. Be that as it may. What I find most disturbing is the idea that if the funds earned from the tobacco trade are used in unrelated areas then they are "clean" funds. This thinking process staggers me. Is this not called "money laundering" when criminals do it?
Centre's name determines the response 19 May 2001
Frederic Bass, Medical Director British Columbia Doctors' Stop-Smoking Program Send response to journal: Re: Centre's name determines the response	If the University of Nottingham's International Centre for the Study of Corporate Responsibility wishes to keep the 3 million pounds given it by British American Tobacco, it needs to change its name to the International Centre for the Demonstration of Corporate Irresponsibility. There is only one way for an ethical tobacco company to go: out of the tobacco business as rapidly as possible, while urging its customers to do the same. And there is only one way for an ethical university to go and that is to reject any donation from those who legally remain the world's most lethal drug-dealers.
A Tainted University 13 June 2001
Donald T Elmore, Professor emeritus of Biochemistry Formerly The Queen's University of Belfast Send response to journal: Re: A Tainted University	Dear Dr Smith, A Tainted University After reading the article concerning your resignation from your chair at the University of Nottingham, I wrote a letter to the Guardian, but it was not published. To the best of my knowledge, there was no other published reference to your views on the grant to the University of Nottingham from BAT. I should like to express here my admiration for your action. I am saddened by the whole incident, however, because I took my first step on the academic ladder as an assistant lecturer in chemistry at the University College of Nottingham over 50 years ago and celebrated the award of its Charter before I left. My first research grant was obtained from the old British Empire Cancer Campaign. I wonder if the University motto, Sapienta urbs conditur, was forgotten in the rush to acquire the windfall from BAT? I also wonder if the indebtedness of the University to the tobacco industry will impair the prospects of members of its its staff acquiring research grants from such charities as the British Heart Foundation and the Cancer Research Campaign? From its early days, the University College had some eminent figures on its academic staff including Kipping (chemistry of silicon compounds), Pinto (reputedly able to speak and write over a dozen languages) and Piaggio (as skilled at chess as in the solution of differential equations). There is clearly an interesting history of the University of Nottingham. If anybody decides to research this project with a view to publishing a book, I hope that they will include your experience. Yours sincerely, D.T. Elmore (Professor emeritus) Witney, Oxfordshire OX29 4QL
Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money? 20 June 2001
Colin Durnin, head of pain management group, clinical development 27 Castle Gate, Nottingham Send response to journal: Re: Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money?	Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money? yes resignation question - yes