Monbiot on university funding

Further to a recent blog post (scroll down for the relevant quote), this article from George Monbiot has popped up in the Guardian concerning the ability of corporations to fund university research.

Many of the comments on this piece, seem to miss his point, accusing Monbiot of wanting to live in a cave because he doesn't like Shell, whereas the argument seems to be more about whether corporate funding comes with strings attached. Not just Shell: the argument extends to any other industry that finances university education.

His point that universities don't accept tobacco funding is pertinent too: he cannot persuade universities to explain the difference between Shell and Philip Morris. The general public seems to be expected to accept that only big tobacco unduly influences government and so only big tobacco must be maligned – because its products are evil. The other industries produce stuff that is good for us like oil, pharmaceuticals, fertilisers and armaments, and it doesn't matter how much influence they purchase. The idea that tobacco companies can assist in funding cancer cures, for example, or even sponsor football, is seen as completely off the wall. It is absurd that tobacco must bear the cross of big, bad capital when there are so many companies out there, involved in activities that endanger life.

I think Monbiot is quite right to ask the question why some companies are supposedly beyond suspicion when it comes to funding higher education, especially when these companies yield so much financial clout. It's not that I don't believe some corporate higher education funding isn't inevitable, but it's quite wrong to make out that there is an issue of competing interests and apply it to tobacco and no other industry. In fact this kind of thing is a sop to anti-capitalist sentiment, allowing people to believe that they are censoring powerful industries that like to purchase government loyalty, while ignoring the fact that by and large most corporations can do whatever they like.

Issues that have aroused student protests at universities include: Newcastle students and Adidas; University of Zurich and Union Bank of Switzerland; Leeds and Swansea Universities and BAe; Oxford University and Lockheed Martin on Campaign Against the Arms Trade website; Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen and Eden Springs.

Where but California ... staying in a hotel that provides smoking rooms can seriously damage your health

A new study warns non-smokers off using hotels that provide smoking rooms. Go for hotels that don't provide smoking rooms, because otherwise your health will be at risk.

Non-smokers should give hotels that allow smoking in certain rooms a wide berth, say the authors, and instead choose completely smoke free hotels.

The researchers analysed the surfaces and air quality of rooms for evidence of tobacco smoke pollution (nicotine and 3EP), known as third hand smoke, in a random sample of budget to mid-range hotels in San Diego, California.

The smoke gets into non-smoking rooms (self-closing fire doors notwithstanding) and of course hallways. They even tested the non-smoking guests.

Thanks to the BMJ blog for this live-saving information.

Plain packaging in an independent Scotland?

Handwringing has occurred at the failure of the Queen to announce that Her Majesty's government was about to force tobacco into plain packaging. Here's an example, provided by the Telegraph, in which a vast quantity of medics berate the government over the omission and hammer home the notion that health is key to government policy:

The health of the people is surely the highest purpose of government, so it is chilling to hear that the Coalition does not consider the prevention of ill health and premature mortality to be part of its role

I suppose that is what you would expect doctors to say, and as it happens I agree that a Conservative government would prioritise corporate interests over public health more than I would like. But as it happens, I don't happen to believe that plain packaging is a policy that has any particular merit – the evidence for it has been collated entirely by people employed specifically as tobacco control advocates and suffers disastrously from a lack of objectivity. Government sources know that most people start smoking before they can buy tobacco legally, indeed it is only a matter of years since the legal age of purchasing tobacco was raised, and smokers generally tell you that they were given cigarettes by friends before they could purchase legally.

Even if plain packaging were guaranteed to bring down smoking rates, I wouldn't necessarily consider it health priority, as there are so many other environmental health problems including everything from general aerial pollution, to mineral depletion in the soil.  

But we were talking about Scotland. Personally I have made no final decision on this issue. A Herald leader characterises the Queen's Speech as led by UKIP: it excludes legislation to allow gay marriage, and commitments on foreign aid. Some of its points are well made, for example will restrictions on immigration involve GPs and landlords being responsible for vetting their patients or tenants? However it refers to plain packaging as 'progressive' and looks forward to 'going our own way' on plain packaging and minimum pricing, playing right into the hands of those who ridicule the outcome of a Yes vote on the Scottish referendum as the beginning of a thousand year rule for Eck.

There are too many doubters about the wisdom of Scottish independence for this to be a likely political outcome. The Scottish Socialists also support independence, and it is very unlikely that people who have been persuaded into voting for independence, their own warts-and-all goverment rather than the mess (devolution) that we currently have, will be content with a one-party state, whatever the SNP expects at present.

Plain packaging is supported by Cancer Research UK, which is a fanatically anti-tobacco organisation. Its Tobacco Action Group, which funds research into tobacco and cancer, will generally only fund research that finds tobacco responsible for most cancer and supports further restrictions. Such prejudicial conditions are anathema to real scientific investigation and I would not want it to be the basis of policy in Scotland under any circumstances, whether independent or not. The whole tobacco control agenda is pushed by ASH Scotland, an organisation that gets minimal private funding: this does not speak for its popularity.

Those pushing for independence should realise that they have to fight the impression created by the media that they want independence inside a yellow packet adorned with Alex Salmond's picture. He is no more responsible for the popularity of Scottish independence than 'pretty packaging' is responsible for the young taking up smoking. A Yes vote can only occur if the result is expected to improve genuine public participation.

Until I've read more I will still be neutral on this issue. Tobacco control is what we are up against, because it is designed by a global health body that is directed by pharmaceutical interests rather than real health needs.