[Ip-health] At One University, Tobacco Money Is a Secret

[Joana Ramos]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/22tobacco.html?pagewanted=3D2&th&emc=
=3Dth

May 22, 2008
At One University, Tobacco Money Is a Secret
By ALAN FINDER
NY Times

<snip>

> Under the agreement, though, Philip Morris alone decides whether the
> researchers can publish because the contract defines =93without
> limitation all work product or other material created by V.C.U.=94 as
> proprietary information belonging to the company......
>
> ......Dr. Solana agreed, saying that once the company determined that
> its competitive interests were protected, it could permit researchers
> to publish.
>
> =93We have to start out with is anyone=92s intellectual property going to
> be compromised?=94 Dr. Solana said. =93Once the intellectual property is
> protected, then it=92s usually O.K. to publish.
---------- original article-------------------

On campuses nationwide, professors and administrators have passionately
debated whether their universities should accept money for research from
tobacco companies. But not at Virginia Commonwealth University, a public
institution in Richmond, Va.

That is largely because hardly any faculty members or students there
know that there is something to debate =97 a contract with extremely
restrictive terms that the university signed in 2006 to do research for
Philip Morris USA, the nation=92s largest tobacco company and a unit of
Altria Group.

The contract bars professors from publishing the results of their
studies, or even talking about them, without Philip Morris=92s permission.
If =93a third party,=94 including news organizations, asks about the
agreement, university officials have to decline to comment and tell the
company. Nearly all patent and other intellectual property rights go to
the company, not the university or its professors.

=93There is restrictive language in here,=94 said Francis L. Macrina,
Virginia Commonwealth=92s vice president for research, who acknowledged
that many of the provisions violated the university=92s guidelines for
industry-sponsored research. =93In the end, it was language we thought we
could agree to. It=92s a balancing act.=94

But the contract, a copy of which The New York Times obtained under the
Virginia Freedom of Information law, is highly unusual and raises
questions about how far universities will go in search of scarce
research dollars to enhance their standing. It also brings a new
dimension to the already divisive debate on many campuses over whether
it is appropriate for universities to accept tobacco money for research.

Dr. Macrina would not specify how much money Philip Morris gave for the
restricted research. Historically, the company has not been a major
contributor to the university. Last year, it gave $1.3 million in
research grants that included the restricted contract and a more
traditional independent grant, Dr. Macrina said.

Over all last year, Virginia Commonwealth, with nearly 32,000 students,
received $227 million in research grants from government and private
sources, a sum dwarfed by the amounts the nation=92s largest research
universities take in. For example, the University of Washington received
$1 billion in grants last year, while Johns Hopkins got $1.4 billion in
federal money alone.

Philip Morris, based in Richmond, is a likely source for Virginia
Commonwealth in its hunt for dollars from a finite number of
corporations. Among tobacco companies, Philip Morris is the leader in
investing in academic research. And for Virginia Commonwealth, expanding
ties with its neighbor could produce other benefits like additional
grants and support for other university functions.

About a dozen researchers and research ethicists from other universities
were astonished at the restrictions in the contract, when they were told
about it.

=93When universities sign contracts with these covenants, they are
basically giving up their ethos, compromising their values as a
university,=94 said Sheldon Krimsky, a professor at Tufts University who
is an expert on corporate influence on medical research. =93There should
be no debate about having a sponsor with control over the publishing of
results.=94

Stanton A. Glantz, a professor at the University of California, San
Francisco, School of Medicine who has lobbied for banning tobacco money
on campuses, said, =93University administrators who are desperate for
money will basically do anything they have to for money.=94

Although Dr. Macrina would not discuss many details of the research,
Philip Morris officials were less reticent.

Rick Solana, the senior vice president for research and technology, said
university scientists were studying how to identify early warning signs
of pulmonary disease, and how to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus drained
into rivers from processing tobacco leaves.

Dr. Solana also said the contract represented a new focus on developing
tobacco products with reduced risks, a shift in strategy in underwriting
university research that requires more confidentiality to protect the
corporation=92s intellectual property rights. And he said Philip Morris
had similar arrangements with other universities =97 although he declined
to say how many or which ones.

About 15 public health and medical schools no longer accept donations
from the tobacco industry, and many major research universities continue
to do so only if guaranteed independence to carry out the research and
publish the results.

The business school at the University of Texas at Austin decided in
December to stop accepting tobacco money. The University of California
system tightened its oversight of tobacco-financed research last fall,
after rejecting a proposal for a ban.

Virginia Commonwealth=92s president, Eugene P. Trani, declined to be
interviewed. But Dr. Macrina defended the contract, saying it struck a
reasonable balance between the university=92s need for openness and Philip
Morris=92s need for confidentiality, even though it violated Virginia
Commonwealth=92s own rules.

=93These restrictive clauses seek to protect the rights and interests of
multiple parties in the agreement,=94 Dr. Macrina said, pointing out that
Virginia Commonwealth scientists would be working with other researchers.

Virginia Commonwealth=92s guidelines for industry-sponsored research
state, =93University faculty and students must be free to publish their
results.=94 The guidelines also say the university must retain all patent
and other intellectual property rights from sponsored research.

Under the agreement, though, Philip Morris alone decides whether the
researchers can publish because the contract defines =93without limitation
all work product or other material created by V.C.U.=94 as proprietary
information belonging to the company.

=93We would have discussions, and there could well be agreements that
could ultimately result in the publication of proprietary information,=94
Dr. Macrina said.

Dr. Solana agreed, saying that once the company determined that its
competitive interests were protected, it could permit researchers to
publish.

=93We have to start out with is anyone=92s intellectual property going to b=
e
compromised?=94 Dr. Solana said. =93Once the intellectual property is
protected, then it=92s usually O.K. to publish.

=93Something being proprietary does not mean something cannot be
published. We try to be very supportive in the health area of work being
published.=94

The contract also includes a longer than usual time for Philip Morris to
review any possible publications by the researchers for potential patent
or other proprietary problems =97 120 days, with the option to continue
for 60 days more. Again, this violates university guidelines, which call
for reviews of no more than 90 days.

=93When you have multiple parties involved at the level of the sponsor,
we=92re willing to agree to more time than we usually would,=94 Dr. Macrina
said.

Dr. Macrina also defended the requirement that the university decline
comment and tell the company if asked about the agreement by news
organizations and other third parties.

=93Language like that occurs in agreements like this because the sponsor
wants to be sure there are no slip-ups, that things will not be released
inadvertently,=94 he said.

Dr. Solana said the prohibition was intended to prevent participants in
the research, both at the university or at other companies, from using
the relationship with Philip Morris to promote themselves.

At Virginia Commonwealth, few professors appeared to know about the
contract; when told about it, a number of them said they were concerned
about its secretiveness.

=93It=92s a controversial area, and I personally prefer transparency,=94 sa=
id
Richard P. Wenzel, chairman of the department of internal medicine at
the university=92s medical school, who had not heard of the contract
before a reporter=92s call.

Dan Ream, the president of the Faculty Senate, said he, too, knew
nothing about the contract.

=93It hasn=92t come up as an issue of debate in the Faculty Senate at all,=
=94
said Mr. Ream, who works in the university=92s library. =93I=92m highly
committed to open access to information. That=92s one of the tenets of
librarianship.=94

A tenured scientist at Virginia Commonwealth, who would not be
interviewed for attribution because he said he feared retribution
against his junior colleagues, called the contract=92s restrictions,
especially the limitations on publication, =93completely unacceptable in
the research world.=94

For most of the decade, Philip Morris financed conventional research
grants, using a scientific panel to select worthy research proposals
from professors. The company granted independence to the professors
whose work it sponsored and left them free to publish.

Even so, opponents of smoking opposed the grants, arguing that
universities should not take money from tobacco companies because of the
public health impact of smoking and what they viewed as the industry=92s
misuse of scientific research.

Last fall, Philip Morris began phasing out this program to switch to
developing new products, said Dr. Solana, the company vice president.
Some of the new research will be conducted internally, he said, at a new
company research center in Richmond, and some will be contracted out to
universities and corporations case by case.

The restricted contract with Virginia Commonwealth, Dr. Solana said, was
part of what he hopes will be a new and different relationship between
the company and universities. But scientists said such restrictions =97
especially the constraints on publication and what university officials
can say publicly =97 are contrary to the open discussion essential to
university research.

=93It=92s counter to the entire purpose and rationale of a university,=94 s=
aid
David Rosner, a professor of public health and history at Columbia
University. =93It=92s not a consulting company; it=92s not just another
commercial firm.=94

---------------
Joana Ramos, MSW
Cancer Resources & Advocacy
Seattle WA USA
+1-206-229-2420
http://ramoslink.info/
www.bmtbasics.org