Cancer Research urges Durham University to give back tobacco company money

Further to this story, Cancer Research UK has advised Durham University to return the donation that it received from British American Tobacco.

From the point of view of CRUK, it seems that tobacco company money, uniquely among the gifts from over 2,000 donors to the Durham University scholarship fund, is likely to have been given solely and cynically to promote the sales of tobacco in Afghanistan. All other donors are of course completely above board, without any ulterior motive, no corporate responsibility brownie points or prospective markets in Afghanistan (the beneficiaries of the fund are Afghan women scholars). Among all the people who have donated money, only the tobacco donation demonstrates the true evil of capitalism, where every apparently generous act is ultimately a selfish one, and all the other donors are innocent philanthropists.

Cancer Research UK funds studies on cancer. I wouldn't claim that its tobacco research forms a significant share of all the research it funds, but Cancer Research UK indicates that applicants for research grants in tobacco must follow a research agenda that favours tobacco restrictions. This seems to me back to front: announcing the policy prescriptions of the research before research has been done. In order to get the research money you have to accept a certain conclusion before even starting. You will get money for twisting the data to fit CRUK's ideas about tobacco policy, but not for mounting an effective challenge to it. For example, such a challenge could point out that if policies are too restrictive, criminals will get a foothold on the market with unregulated tobacco, which is potentially more dangerous to human health than regulated tobacco.

This is why I would quarrel with Cancer Research UK's claim that 'tobacco cash is bad for your moral health'. Cancer Research UK has no brief to lecture people about their morals. I don't consider their conditions for tobacco research grants particularly ethical.

Durham University accepts tobacco money for scholarship fund

The story can be found here and here. The donation from British American Tobacco seems to have upset academics and some of the student body, and is predictably described by Action on Smoking and Health as 'cynical'.

The funds will pay for scholarships for Afghan women, probably explaining the reaction of Action on Smoking and Health, who will see the donation as an attempt by British American Tobacco to win favour and sales in Afghanistan. The University claims that most of its staff and students feel that the benefits of funding women scholars from Afghanistan outweigh other considerations. The donation is one of 2,000 others received following the appeal.

It's unfortunate for anti-smoking authorities that tobacco companies have money to burn, but since tobacco companies are forbidden by law from advertising, thanks to anti-tobacco campaigns, it is hardly surprising when they employ more subtle forms of marketing (not that BAT describe their donation in such terms: they describe their corporate social responsibility fund as 'an end in itself').

Action on Smoking and Health concerns itself only with the evils of tobacco. No one else is accused of cynicism for donating to the scholarship fund, although with so many donors it would be hard to imagine that none of the others was a corporate donor with a potential market in Afghanistan.

It could be that there are insufficient 'ethical' funds in the pot to support all our philanthropic instincts. I support the University for attracting and employing a broad base of donations, without specific prejudice against accepting money from tobacco.