A
Archangel
Guest
Tobacco funded Mass. researchers
Philip Morris defends grants; critics call the results tainted
By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff | March 31, 2008
The nation's largest cigarette maker has paid for scientific research at
four Massachusetts universities since 2000, a practice that critics of the
tobacco industry liken to the Mafia underwriting crime fighting.
Philip Morris USA, which makes Marlboro and other top-selling cigarette
lines, gave grants to scientists at Boston University, Harvard University,
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of
Massachusetts, company spokesman David M. Sylvia said Friday.
The research supported by the company touched on conditions such as heart
disease and cancer that are linked to smoking. The grants given by the
Philip Morris External Research Program were not used to develop new
tobacco products or refine existing brands, but they may have helped the
company rehabilitate its public image.
When accepting Philip Morris money, the researchers had to promise to
disclose the source of their funding in scientific publications, Sylvia
said, and the company, in turn, promised not to meddle in the research.
Still, industry foes said research paid for by tobacco companies is
irredeemably compromised.
"Taking money from the tobacco industry to conduct scientific research is
like the DA taking money from the Mafia to conduct investigations of
crime," said Gregory Connolly, a Harvard School of Public Health professor
and former director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program.
University scientists first came under withering attack for taking money
from Big Tobacco in the 1990s, when their work was seen as buttressing
industry claims that cigarettes were not harmful. The tenor of
industry-funded research changed after the companies acknowledged in a
landmark settlement in 1998 that their products were lethal.
"Their interest now is to try to convince the public that they are truly
concerned companies and that they care enough to fund important research at
reputable institutions," said Dr. Michael Siegel, a Boston University
School of Public Health researcher who has extensively studied the tobacco
industry. "And, they're using the good name of these institutions to try to
bolster their own scientific and public credibility."
BU's acceptance of research grants from Philip Morris was first disclosed
Thursday in The Daily Free Press, a student newspaper at the university.
In a statement issued Friday evening, the provost of BU's medical campus,
Dr. Karen Antman, said the school had received $3.99 million from Philip
Morris during the past decade and devoted it to the study of
tobacco-related diseases.
"We adhere to the highest ethical conduct in research and pursue funding
from a variety of sources for unrestricted medical research," Antman said
in the statement. "Our research is conducted and the results are assessed
against the standard benchmarks that apply to any research."
Philip Morris would not disclose how much money in total it distributed
through the External Research Program from 2000 through last year, when it
was ended. Nor would the company specify the amounts given to Massachusetts
scientists.
Worldwide, about 470 research projects were underwritten by the company,
Sylvia said, resulting in more than 1,000 publications in journals that
subject papers to peer scrutiny, such as the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.
Philip Morris recruited a scientific advisory board to review research
proposals, Sylvia said, placing an emphasis on projects related to how
smoking causes cancer, heart disease, and respiratory ailments.
"Obviously, cigarettes are a product that is addictive and cause serious
disease," Sylvia said. "Our goal is to try to reduce the harm associated
with cigarettes. We felt there needed to be additional research in these
various areas to better help us in our effort to reduce the harm related to
smoking."
The company provided three examples of Massachusetts researchers it
supported. In two of those cases, the recipients were junior scientists -
known as post-doctoral researchers - who often find it difficult to win
highly competitive grants from the federal government or other major
sources of research support.
One of them said he was happy to get the funding for his work on computer
modeling of potential treatments for cardiovascular disease.
"As there were no strings attached in the application process I had no
qualms in applying for this funding," Rami Tzafriri, of MIT, said in an
e-mail. "In retrospect I can say that the whole process was very
professional and friendly and that under similar circumstances I would
apply for such funding again. Funding for research is essential, but
unfortunately scarce. So any source that does not compromise my
independence is welcome."
MIT officials declined to comment about their researchers' acceptance of
Philip Morris money.
At BU, one recipient, Dr. Douglas Faller, is a longtime professor and
director of the BU Cancer Center. According to a document detailing work at
the university's Women's Health Interdisciplinary Research Center, Faller
received $268,759 from Philip Morris to investigate a cancer drug.
Reached at his home late Friday, Faller deferred to university officials
for comment.
At Harvard Medical School, researchers were ordered to stop pursuing
tobacco-industry grants in July 2004. "The policy did, however, allow those
few researchers who had ongoing projects funded by those entities to
complete them," Margaret Dale, dean for faculty and research integrity at
Harvard Medical School, said in a statement released Friday by a university
spokesman.
When the school issued its policy, administrators acknowledged that grant
money can be hard to turn down.
But "in light of the harm that has been caused by the tobacco industry and
its products, and considering [Harvard Medical School's] mission as a
leader in teaching, research and patient care," the only acceptable course
was to ban the tobacco grants, the Harvard administrators wrote.
A UMass Medical School spokeswoman said that the school does not currently
have any research supported by tobacco companies and that it had accepted
"no more than" $2 million from the industry over the past decade. By
comparison, she said, the medical school estimates it received a total of
$1.3 billion in research funding during that period.
The Tufts University School of Medicine received no Philip Morris grants,
but a school spokeswoman said that one laboratory there had received a
grant in 2006 from a tobacco company.
Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine
who has written widely about research funding sources, said that
tobacco-company grants have long been a source of "enormous controversy."
"If the motivation [of tobacco firms] is to try to show that their products
are not as evil as they actually are, then I think researchers should not
be doing that sort of thing," Kassirer said. "If the money is completely
unrestricted, then it may be OK. But I know enough about pharmaceutical
industries that they're not going to fund things if they don't see benefit
in it for them. The same must be true for the tobacco industry."
Stephen Smith can be reached at stsmith@globe.com.
Archangel
Philip Morris defends grants; critics call the results tainted
By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff | March 31, 2008
The nation's largest cigarette maker has paid for scientific research at
four Massachusetts universities since 2000, a practice that critics of the
tobacco industry liken to the Mafia underwriting crime fighting.
Philip Morris USA, which makes Marlboro and other top-selling cigarette
lines, gave grants to scientists at Boston University, Harvard University,
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of
Massachusetts, company spokesman David M. Sylvia said Friday.
The research supported by the company touched on conditions such as heart
disease and cancer that are linked to smoking. The grants given by the
Philip Morris External Research Program were not used to develop new
tobacco products or refine existing brands, but they may have helped the
company rehabilitate its public image.
When accepting Philip Morris money, the researchers had to promise to
disclose the source of their funding in scientific publications, Sylvia
said, and the company, in turn, promised not to meddle in the research.
Still, industry foes said research paid for by tobacco companies is
irredeemably compromised.
"Taking money from the tobacco industry to conduct scientific research is
like the DA taking money from the Mafia to conduct investigations of
crime," said Gregory Connolly, a Harvard School of Public Health professor
and former director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program.
University scientists first came under withering attack for taking money
from Big Tobacco in the 1990s, when their work was seen as buttressing
industry claims that cigarettes were not harmful. The tenor of
industry-funded research changed after the companies acknowledged in a
landmark settlement in 1998 that their products were lethal.
"Their interest now is to try to convince the public that they are truly
concerned companies and that they care enough to fund important research at
reputable institutions," said Dr. Michael Siegel, a Boston University
School of Public Health researcher who has extensively studied the tobacco
industry. "And, they're using the good name of these institutions to try to
bolster their own scientific and public credibility."
BU's acceptance of research grants from Philip Morris was first disclosed
Thursday in The Daily Free Press, a student newspaper at the university.
In a statement issued Friday evening, the provost of BU's medical campus,
Dr. Karen Antman, said the school had received $3.99 million from Philip
Morris during the past decade and devoted it to the study of
tobacco-related diseases.
"We adhere to the highest ethical conduct in research and pursue funding
from a variety of sources for unrestricted medical research," Antman said
in the statement. "Our research is conducted and the results are assessed
against the standard benchmarks that apply to any research."
Philip Morris would not disclose how much money in total it distributed
through the External Research Program from 2000 through last year, when it
was ended. Nor would the company specify the amounts given to Massachusetts
scientists.
Worldwide, about 470 research projects were underwritten by the company,
Sylvia said, resulting in more than 1,000 publications in journals that
subject papers to peer scrutiny, such as the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.
Philip Morris recruited a scientific advisory board to review research
proposals, Sylvia said, placing an emphasis on projects related to how
smoking causes cancer, heart disease, and respiratory ailments.
"Obviously, cigarettes are a product that is addictive and cause serious
disease," Sylvia said. "Our goal is to try to reduce the harm associated
with cigarettes. We felt there needed to be additional research in these
various areas to better help us in our effort to reduce the harm related to
smoking."
The company provided three examples of Massachusetts researchers it
supported. In two of those cases, the recipients were junior scientists -
known as post-doctoral researchers - who often find it difficult to win
highly competitive grants from the federal government or other major
sources of research support.
One of them said he was happy to get the funding for his work on computer
modeling of potential treatments for cardiovascular disease.
"As there were no strings attached in the application process I had no
qualms in applying for this funding," Rami Tzafriri, of MIT, said in an
e-mail. "In retrospect I can say that the whole process was very
professional and friendly and that under similar circumstances I would
apply for such funding again. Funding for research is essential, but
unfortunately scarce. So any source that does not compromise my
independence is welcome."
MIT officials declined to comment about their researchers' acceptance of
Philip Morris money.
At BU, one recipient, Dr. Douglas Faller, is a longtime professor and
director of the BU Cancer Center. According to a document detailing work at
the university's Women's Health Interdisciplinary Research Center, Faller
received $268,759 from Philip Morris to investigate a cancer drug.
Reached at his home late Friday, Faller deferred to university officials
for comment.
At Harvard Medical School, researchers were ordered to stop pursuing
tobacco-industry grants in July 2004. "The policy did, however, allow those
few researchers who had ongoing projects funded by those entities to
complete them," Margaret Dale, dean for faculty and research integrity at
Harvard Medical School, said in a statement released Friday by a university
spokesman.
When the school issued its policy, administrators acknowledged that grant
money can be hard to turn down.
But "in light of the harm that has been caused by the tobacco industry and
its products, and considering [Harvard Medical School's] mission as a
leader in teaching, research and patient care," the only acceptable course
was to ban the tobacco grants, the Harvard administrators wrote.
A UMass Medical School spokeswoman said that the school does not currently
have any research supported by tobacco companies and that it had accepted
"no more than" $2 million from the industry over the past decade. By
comparison, she said, the medical school estimates it received a total of
$1.3 billion in research funding during that period.
The Tufts University School of Medicine received no Philip Morris grants,
but a school spokeswoman said that one laboratory there had received a
grant in 2006 from a tobacco company.
Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine
who has written widely about research funding sources, said that
tobacco-company grants have long been a source of "enormous controversy."
"If the motivation [of tobacco firms] is to try to show that their products
are not as evil as they actually are, then I think researchers should not
be doing that sort of thing," Kassirer said. "If the money is completely
unrestricted, then it may be OK. But I know enough about pharmaceutical
industries that they're not going to fund things if they don't see benefit
in it for them. The same must be true for the tobacco industry."
Stephen Smith can be reached at stsmith@globe.com.
Archangel
