Tobacco Council and Research

Abstract

In contrast to the statement by Brown University's Paul Calabresi (26 Apr., p. 493) in the special news report by Jon Cohen “Tobacco money lights up a debate” ([26 Apr., p. 488][1]) about research funding by the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), this funding agency provides a “no strings attached” source of peer-reviewed funding in amounts often not obtainable from nonprofit private funding agencies. This source of funding is crucial to furthering biomedical research by allowing young investigators to start a research program and enabling established investigators to begin new projects. Thus, the money is used to expand basic disease-related research, which is not different from the government using tobacco tax revenues to support socially significant programs. To question the morality of using money from tobacco products to further disease-related research is to beg the larger question, What is the responsibility of private industry to contribute to funding basic research in an era of ever-contracting federal support? Why is there no “Council for Pharmaceutical Research” to support basic biomedical studies that are the foundation of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries? Although large technology-based corporations claim to have bottom-line considerations that do not allow them to invest in risky long-term basic research endeavors, it is clear from the CTR example that, when corporations see an advantage to supporting such research, funds can and will be made available. Perhaps it is time for the biomedical research community to make clear to other members of the private sector that there are broad advantages to contributing greater financial support to the basic research that provides the technologies and insights from which the profits of their industries derive. Finally, it is noteworthy that several research institutions refuse to allow their investigators to apply for CTR funding. In contrast to their high moral position, one wonders if a low indirect cost rate (15%) plays a role in their eschewing these awards. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.272.5261.488