Fatal attractions from tobacco companies
A65-year-old man at a small table in a laboratory at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, asks for his 12th cigarette in less than eight hours. A researcher is happy to oblige. As he lights up, technicians swarm to take a blood sample, make him exhale into a sensor and administer cognitive tests.
The experiment, led by neuroscientist Jed Rose, focuses on the volunteer's response to Quest, a cigarette made from tobacco genetically engineered to contain less nicotine. Dr Rose directs the university's Center for Nicotine and Smoking Cessation Research, which helps smokers kick the habit. He sees the Quest study as important because it indicates that smokers of this new product inhale less deeply than smokers of an earlier "reduced-harm" product - the low-tar cigarette - and may therefore cut their dependence on tobacco.
But the work is controversial. Quest's maker, the Vector Tobacco Company of Re-search Triangle Park, North Carolina, paid for the study, and tobacco giant Philip Morris funds the centre.
Since the late 1990s the tobacco industry has provided university researchers with millions of dollars to help develop a new class of reduced-harm products - in-cluding modified cigarettes such as Quest, tobacco lozenges and nicotine inhalation devices - ostensibly to reduce the hazards of smoking. Advocates say the in-dustry is now serious about improving the safety of its products. But critics, who cite its efforts to manipulate science over the past 50 years, see nothing but the same old smoke and mirrors.
Despite the efforts of anti-smoking activists, funding from the industry is flourishing, igniting a debate about whether universities should ban tobacco money and whether grant organisations should deny funding to individuals or schools that take it.
Ken Warner, a public health expert at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, concedes the industry was guilty of misconduct in the past but worries about restricting research.
Dr Rose thinks the tobacco industry's new focus on harm reduction may usher in a new era of tobacco-sponsored research. This research is "high quality, innovative and unique," he says, and "very different from the abuses of the past". Dr Rose, a co-inventor of the nicotine patch, says: "The real enemy is the death and disease smokers suffer. If we can use tobacco money to help people lead healthier lives, why shouldn't we?"
Stephen Rennard, a pulmonary physician at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha who has also received support from the tobacco industry, agrees. "People are going to continue to smoke, and we need to make them as safe as we can. The tobacco industry needs university research to develop a safer product."
One of Dr Rennard's projects, funded by RJ Reynolds, evaluated Eclipse -a cigarette made by the company that heats rather than burns tobacco, theoretically producing less harmful smoke. Dr Rennard later used money from Philip Morris to determine how much smoke the average cigarette user is exposed to. The findings may help the company design a cigarette that cuts the levels of inhaled smoke.
Dr Rennard says taking money from the industry required soul-searching. "But in the end I realised that this research should be funded by tobacco companies. NIH resources should not be used to improve cigarettes. It would be like the government subsidising the development of a better laundry detergent."
Others think researchers should just say no. Simon Chapman, editor of the journal Tobacco Control and a professor of public health at the University of Sydney in Australia, says the tobacco companies have little interest in health. "They fund this research to buy respectability and ward off litigation," he says. Some fear that reduced-harm products are a ploy to keep smokers addicted.
For many critics of mixing tobacco money with university research, the industry's history speaks for itself. For example, as the link between smoking and disease became clearer in the early 1950s, the world's largest tobacco companies established the Tobacco Industry Research Committee - later the Council for Tobacco Research - to fund research into health effects of smoking. But its main goal, internal documents reveal, was to obfuscate risks and few of the studies it funded addressed the hazards of cigarettes.
The industry also lost credibility with its previous attempts at harm reduction when it touted low-tar and filtered cigarettes as "safer", says Dr Chapman, while suppressing evidence that smokers drew harder on them, thus increasing their intake of carcinogens.
While scientists debate the merits of taking tobacco money, authorities may take the decision out of their hands. Over the past decade, a number of institutions - including the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Glasgow - have banned researchers from applying for grants from the tobacco industry. Organisations such as Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust no longer fund researchers who take tobacco money. The American Cancer Society, one of the largest private funders of cancer research, plans to adopt a similar policy this month. Ohio State University, Columbus, was in the eye of the storm in 2003 when Philip Morris offered a medical school researcher a $590,000 (￡313,000) grant at the same time a state foundation offered a nursing school researcher a $540,000 grant. But the terms of the state grant would have prohibited all other university researchers from taking tobacco money, so the school could not accept both. "There was a very heated debate among the faculty," says Tom Rosol, the university's senior associate vice-president for research, who ultimately decided to take the Philip Morris grant. "It came down to the issue of academic freedom," he says. "We didn't want to accept a grant that would have placed restrictions on our investigators." The decision sparked a backlash, and several departments banned researchers from taking money from tobacco companies.
A resolution approved by the University of California's Academic Senate this summer would have the opposite effect. A proposal that "no special encumbrances should be placed on a faculty member's ability to solicit or accept awards based on the source of funds" would prevent institutions in the university system banning tobacco funding. Robert Dynes of the university describes such bans as "a violation of the faculty's academic freedom".
Not everyone believes this argument. "The university should be a role model," says Joanna Cohen, an expert on university tobacco policies at the University of Toronto. "Academic freedom should not override its ethical responsibilities."
Dr Rennard, who made himself ineligible for state money by accepting tobacco industry funds, says: "Political positions should not determine scientific agendas. If we restrict research on moral grounds, should we ban grant money from pharmaceutical companies or industries that pollute the environment? Where do you draw the line?"
As public funding gets tighter, more universities may have to confront this question. The tobacco industry is poised to fill the financial void, but pressure on institutions is likely to increase. In the end, institutions will have to decide whether to overlook the source of this funding or take the moral high ground and watch it go up in smoke.
This article was provided by AAAS and Science, its international journal.
www.aaas. org:
www.scienceonline.orgNO CONSENSUS ON TAKING CIGARETTE CASH
* Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Glasgow have already banned researchers from applying for tobacco industry grants. Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust no longer fund researchers who take tobacco money. The American Cancer Society plans to follow this month.
* The tobacco industry has provided millions of dollars to help develop a new class of "reduced-harm" products. Advocates argue it is now serious about safety, while critics say it is manipulating science.
* A ban on accepting funds represents a restriction on academic freedom for some university researchers: "Where do you draw the line?", asks one. In 2003, Ohio State University turned down money from a donor that wanted to restrict tobacco funding. Now the University of California is proposing that no restrictions should be placed on faculty members' sources of funds.
烟草公司的致命诱惑
在北卡罗来纳州杜兰市的杜克大学医疗中心(Duke University Medical Center)的一间实验室内，一位65岁的老人坐在一张小桌旁，向工作人员索要了一支香烟。这是不到8小时以来他索要的第十二支烟了。一名研究人员很高兴地把烟递给了他。当这位老人点着了烟，开始吸的时候，技术员们蜂拥而上，给他抽血检验，让他朝一个传感器吐气，并对他进行认知测试。
该实验由神经科学家杰德?罗斯(Jed Rose)带领进行。实验旨在测出自愿参加实验的人对Quest牌香烟的反应。Quest牌香烟采用经过基因改良的烟草，尼古丁含量较低。罗斯博士是杜克大学尼古丁和戒烟研究中心的负责人，该中心的宗旨就是帮助烟民戒烟。罗斯博士认为Quest牌香烟的实验非常重要，因为该实验表明，与之前“有害物质较少”的香烟，即尼古丁含量较低的卷烟相比，抽Quest牌香烟的烟民吸入的气体更少，因此，有可能减低烟民的烟瘾。
烟草公司赞助烟草研究
但该项研究已引起争议，因为其赞助商是Quest牌香烟的生产商， 即北卡罗来纳州三角研究中心(Research Triangle Park)的Vector烟草公司，而杜克大学医疗中心本身的赞助人则是美国烟草巨头菲利普莫里斯公司(Philip Morris)。
90年代末以来，烟草公司一直在向大学研究人员提供大笔资金以开发新型“有害物质较少”的烟草制品，包括类似Quest这样经过改良的卷烟、尼古丁含片、以及尼古丁吸入器，这些产品都声称旨在减少烟害。赞成方说，现在烟草公司对提高其产品安全性的问题非常认真。但批评人士则以50年来烟草公司企图操控科学的种种行径为例，认为烟草公司只不过是故技重施。
虽然禁烟活动从未停歇，但烟草公司出钱资助研究则大有愈演愈烈之势，引发一场讨论，主题是：大学是否应该拒收烟草公司的赞助，以及对于那些接受烟草公司赞助的个人和学校，有关的拨款组织是否应该取消他们得到资助的资格。
赞成方观点
密歇根大学安娜堡分校的公共卫生专家肯?沃纳(Ken Warner)承认，烟草公司在过去的确有过错误行为，但他同时也表示了对限制研究的忧虑。肯?沃纳也是尼古丁和烟草研究学会(Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco)的主席。
罗斯博士认为，烟草公司又一次将目光集中在如何减少烟害上，这也许会开创一个烟草公司赞助研究的新时代。他说，这类研究 “是高质量、创新和独特的”，而且“非常不同于以往的陋习”。
他还说：“烟民面临的死亡和疾病才是真正的敌人。如果我们能利用烟草公司提供的资金帮助人们过上更为健康的生活，我们为什么不那样做？”罗斯博士也是戒烟贴(nicotine patch)的发明人之一。
欧马哈市“内布拉斯加大学医学中心”(University of Nebraska Medical Center)的肺科医生斯蒂芬?莱纳德(Stephen Rennard)也接受烟草公司的资助，他同意罗斯博士的观点。他说：“人们还是会继续吸烟，我们要尽可能让他们安全。烟草公司需要大学参与研究，以开发更为安全的烟草制品。”
莱纳德博士完成的项目之一是鉴定超越牌(Eclipse)香烟，生产商雷诺公司(RJ Reynolds) 赞助了该项目。超越牌香烟加热而非燃烧烟草，这样理论上产生的有害气体会少些。后来，莱纳德博士还接受了菲利普莫里斯公司的赞助，确定抽普通香烟的烟民吸入体内的烟量。该科研结果也许有助于菲利普莫里斯公司研发一种新型香烟，以减少烟民吸入体内的烟量。
莱纳德博士说，接受烟草公司赞助需经过深思熟虑。他说：“但最后，我意识到，此类研究应该由烟草公司出资赞助。美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)的资源不应用于改善香烟品质。否则就好比让政府出钱研发更好的洗衣粉。”
反对方观点
其他人认为，研究人员应该对烟草公司的钱说“不”。《烟草控制》杂志的编辑、澳大利亚悉尼大学公共卫生的教授西蒙?查普曼(Simon Chapman)说，烟草公司对健康问题不感兴趣。他说：“他们出资赞助研究是想拿钱买人们的敬意，也为了避免官司上身。”有些人担心，研制含有较少有害物质的新型香烟，只不过是使烟民继续成瘾的一种伎俩。
对于许多反对大学研究接受烟草公司赞助的人士而言，烟草业的历史说明了一切。比如，上世纪 50年代早期，随着吸烟和疾病之间的关联越来越明显，全球最大的烟草公司就联手组建了烟草业研究委员会(Tobacco Industry Research Committee)，即后来的烟草研究委员会(Council for Tobacco Research)，旨在出资研究吸烟对健康的影响。但内部文件显示，其主要目的是迷惑公众对吸烟危害的认识，而且委员会出资赞助的研究中，几乎没有旨在减少香烟危害的项目。
查普曼博士说，当年，烟草公司一边吹嘘说，低尼古丁含量和过滤嘴香烟“更为安全”，一边隐瞒了烟民吸此类香烟时会更使劲，因而会增加致癌物质摄取量的证据。真相大白时，烟草公司在公众心中的可信度大打折扣。
学术自由
当科学家们争论着接受烟草公司赞助的优点时，有关机构也许要拿走科学家们手中的决定权。过去十年里，包括哈佛公共卫生学院(Harvard School of Public Health)和格拉斯哥大学(University of Glasgow)在内的一些机构已经明令禁止科研人员向烟草公司申请资助。英国癌症研究中心(Cancer Research UK)和英国卫尔康信托会(WellcomeTrust)等组织不再向接受烟草公司赞助的科研人员提供资助。本月，全球最大的癌症研究私人资助机构“美国癌症学会”(American Cancer Society)也打算实行类似政策。2003年，位于哥伦布市的俄亥俄州立大学成了人们的关注焦点。当时，菲利普莫里斯公司向一名医学院的科研人员提供了59万美元的资助款，与此同时，该州的一个基金会向一名护理学院的科研人员提供了54万美元的资助款，但条件是大学里所有其他科研人员不能接受烟草公司的赞助，因此，俄亥俄州立大学必须在两者中择其一。该大学负责研究的副校长高级协理汤姆?罗素尔(Tom Rosol)最终还是决定接受菲利普莫里斯公司的赞助，他说：“当时，学校的教职工对此进行了激烈的讨论。归根结底，这是一个学术自由的问题。我们不愿接受限制我们研究人员的资助。”这个决定一时间激起了强烈反对，有些系下令禁止科研人员接受烟草公司的赞助款。
今夏，加州大学教务委员会通过的一项决议走的却是另一个方向。提议的内容是：“不得根据赞助资金的来源阻止教职工申请或接受资助”。根据这项提议，加州大学的各个机构就不能阻止教职工接受烟草公司的赞助了。该大学的罗伯特?戴恩斯(Robert Dynes)认为，如果实行这样的禁令，就“违反了教职工的学术自由”。
但并非所有人都持相同的观点。多伦多大学研究大学烟草政策的专家乔安娜?科恩(Joanna Cohen)说：“大学应成为人们行为的榜样。学术自由不应凌驾于其道德责任之上。”
莱纳德博士接受了烟草公司的赞助，因此便失去了接受该州有关机构资助的资格。他说：“科学研究的内容不应由政治立场来决定。如果我们以道德为由限制科研，那么我们是否也应该下令禁止接受那些污染环境的制药公司或其它产业的赞助呢？究竟如何划分界线？”
随着公共资助日渐稀少，也许越来越多的大学都得面临这个难题。烟草公司们已做好准备填补这个财政空缺，但有关机构肩上的压力有可能会不断增加。最终，这些机构不得不作出选择：是不再顾忌资金来源，还是秉持高度道德立场，拒绝烟草公司的资助。
本文由美国科学促进会(AAAS)及其周刊《科学》杂志提供。网址：
www.aaas.orgwww.scienceonline.org在是否接受烟草公司资助的问题上，人们未能达成一致意见。
*哈佛公共卫生学院和格拉斯哥大学已经明令禁止科研人员向烟草公司申请资助。英国癌症研究中心和英国卫尔康信托会等组织不再向接受烟草公司赞助的科研人员提供资助。本月，美国癌症学会也打算实行类似政策。
*烟草公司已提供了大笔资金用以开发新型的“有害物质较少”的烟草制品。赞成方说，现在，烟草公司对提高其产品安全性的问题非常认真。但批评人士则认为，烟草公司只不过是在操控科学。
*对于一些大学研究人员而言，禁止科研人员接受资助无异于限制他们的学术自由。一名科研人员这样问道：“究竟如何划分界限？”2003年，俄亥俄州立大学拒绝了一笔捐款，因为捐款人要求该大学拒绝烟草公司的资助。现在加州大学提议不应限制教职工接受资助的来源。
