Oxford will take tobacco money says leaked paper
Oxford University has said its position on not using money from tobacco companies is negotiable
Oxford University have been forced to defend their ethical policies yet again after a leaked report suggested it would be willing to receive funding from tobacco companies. An internal report by the cigarette giant British American Tobacco revealed that Oxford was one of only six British universities amenable to investment from tobacco firms, despite supposedly having a restrictive policy in place.
The revelation comes less than a fortnight after it was revealed that Oxford was second only to Cambridge in a league table of UK Universities who invest in arms companies. BAT’s report investigated how willing British educational institutions were to receive funding from BAT, with the aim of helping BAT to “identify specific universities they may be able to collaborate with.” Of the 100 universities questioned in the report, 23 were “not likely to reject tobacco industry funding”.
44 had “considerable barriers to interaction”, but of these 28 were identified where “the barriers were not necessarily unsurpassable.” 18 of the universities questioned, including Oxford, had restrictive tobacco industry funding policies in place - but unlike in universities such as UCL or Bath, in Oxford this policy was deemed “negotiable”. In interviews with an Oxford University contact, BAT had “inferred that funding from the tobacco industry was not necessarily embargoed.
Oxford was viewed as a potential collaborator because it “indicated that given the right research proposal the policy may be reconsidered.” An Oxford University spokeswoman dismissed the allegations. “We don’t take tobacco company funding - I can’t imagine a situation where we would take tobacco money. We haven’t had sponsorship in the past. “But we have to be honest and say that if there was research that was very very important we would go for it.
We reserve the right to receive funding.” She denied that any funding from tobacco companies would be discussed unless it was “absolutely exceptional circumstances. Even then, it would go to debate in the university.” Amanda Sandford, research manager for smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health said that it is “very worrying” when universities consider tobacco company funding.
Describing BAT as a company “without any moral founding”, she said, “it’s an attempt to put a gloss on the tobacco industry, and it’s disgraceful behaviour. “It’s on a par with the arms trade. It’s tainted money and totally inappropriate for an educational institution to receive this funding.” Richard Ollerhead, co-chair of the OUSU ethics committee, said BAT is, “not a company Oxford should be linked to, be it for their human rights abuses or their record on lung cancer.
Anne-Marie O’Reilly, Environment and Ethics chair at St. John’s College, said that it was “absolutely shocking”: “The university needs to stick to an ethical policy. A university like Oxford that leads the way in so many ways shouldn’t do this.” BAT’s report was produced in 2000 but the details have only come to light now as the company initially refused to open internal documents to the public.
Access to files was hindered by limitations on visits and slow processing of requests until a project with supporters including Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome trust and the British Medical Association documented the closed files and released them in an internet archive. The Oxford Socially Responsible Investment campaign, affiliated to OUSU, lists BAT as a “rubbish corporation” that colleges should avoid receiving funding from.
10th Nov 2005