Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
An English university is facing accusations that it has sold its good reputation for £3.8m from a tobacco company in a dispute that has divided its academic community.
The deal between Nottingham University and British American Tobacco has been described as "a terrible humiliation" for the university and prompted predictions of a mass exodus of staff because of its "ethically wrong" decision.
One senior university figure, the East Midlands MEP Mel Read, who resigned last week, is the latest in a long line of academics, lecturers and advisers to have severed their links with the university in protest at BAT's donation to set up Britain's first international centre for business ethics. . .
The deal has caused anger on the university's 330-acre parkland campus where, with 10 applications for every student place and an excellent research record, people usually try to get in, rather than get out. . .
Outrage at the decision is widespread, says Sandi Golbey, of the Association of University Teachers. In an AUT survey of more than 200 University of Nottingham lecturers, more than 80 per cent, agreed the donation had brought the university into disrepute. Ms Golbey said: "It is literally unbelievable that they have taken this money. BAT have a lot to gain by association with a university of the calibre of Nottingham. People will think that they can't be all bad if Nottingham will take their money."
The Student Union has called for university rules to be changed to ban future donations from tobacco companies. . .
The vice-chancellor, Sir Colin Campbell, has fully backed the project. The university insists it has done nothing wrong and believes the long-term benefits of establishing the International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility will outweigh any short-term negative publicity.
Jump to full article »
BAT is a legitimate company; the Treasury takes its money in tax and spends it on things like the NHS. Why is it wrong to take money from it and plough it into higher education? Professor Ian Gow, head of the business school where the BAT's "International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility" will be based. The Nottingham saga continues in, Cassidy, S., <I>University torn apart by £3.8m tobacco deal</I>
A member of the European Parliament has resigned as a special lecturer at a university which has accepted funding from a tobacco company. . .
Now the East Midlands Euro MP, Mel Read, has decided to resign as a special lecturer at the university's adult education centre and as a member of the University Court - a formal body made up of local dignitaries.
When news of the deal broke, Ms Read - herself a graduate of Nottingham University - wrote to the vice chancellor, Sir Colin Campbell, to her express her concerns.
The reply was, she said, "rather anodyne" and merely suggested another university would have taken the cash if Nottingham had not.
SIXTEEN medical staff have resigned from Nottingham University in protest at the acceptance of a multimillion-pound grant from a tobacco company.
Malcolm Stevens, the university’s head of cancer research, described the departures as humiliating. He said yesterday that the resignation of David Thurston and his team of 15 researchers would make Nottingham a “minor player” in the cancer field.
He said that the university’s decision to accept a £3.8 million grant from British American Tobacco was misguided and that it had been made without consultation with academic staff. “We have always aspired at Nottingham to be a major international player in cancer research,” he said. “But as a result of the university’s decision I think we will now be a very minor player. It is a disastrous humiliation.”
Nottingham’s decision to accept the BAT money to set up Britain’s first international centre for corporate social responsibility has already been widely condemned by academics and students at the university. . .
Sources at the university said yesterday that unease about the BAT grant was growing even among other clinicians. A letter calling for BAT’s money to be given back is being circulated among its paediatrics experts.
We have always aspired at Nottingham to be a major international player in cancer research. But as a result of the university’s decision I think we will now be a very minor player. It is a disastrous humiliation. Malcolm Stevens, Nottingham university’s head of cancer research, on the resignation of David Thurston and his team of 15 researchers over the BAT "Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility." WRIGHT, O.<I>University cancer team quits over tobacco aid</I>
I don’t think there’s any evidence of a general exodus of people. Unidentified Nottingham University spokesman, after yet another departure over the BAT "Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility," this time by an entire team. WRIGHT, O.<I>University cancer team quits over tobacco aid</I>
University authorities last night expressed "regret" at Mr Smith's decision to step down but said there would be no going back on the decision to accept the money. Philip Dalling, head of public affairs at the university, said: "We are naturally sorry to lose his expertise. But we have decided to accept the money and it has been ratified by the 400 members of the governing council. It won't be reconsidered."
Cancer charities and medical bodies backed Mr Smith's resignation. The Cancer Research Campaign, which earlier this year ruled out raising funds for a £9m research laboratory at the university because of the donation, suggested more staff could follow.
Nottingham is regarded as a centre of excellence in the cancer field and has recently developed a drug for treating brain tumours. Its team is also testing drugs for ovarian, breast and bowel cancers.
Professor Gordon McVie, director general of the charity, said: "Accepting the tainted tobacco cash has backfired on the university and they are facing a huge exodus of good staff and sponsorship. How many more people need to resign before it gets the message that allowing the tobacco industry to buy respectability is unacceptable?"
ASH applauded the decision of Richard Smith – editor of the British Medical Journal - to resign from his post as professor of medical journalism at Nottingham University in protest at the University’s decision to accept £3.8 million sponsorship from British American Tobacco.. .
The condemnation of BAT and the university is unambiguous and richly deserved, and backed up by testimony of BMJ readers. But ASH believes that though there are arguments both ways on resignation, the readers were right to support his resignation. ASH Director Clive Bates said:
“We think he has done the right thing by pulling out. The University establishment is not interested in the arguments or in defending its decision, and they made a feeble case for taking BAT’s money. The Vice-Chancellor simply repeats that it’s all a difference of opinion.” . .
“You couldn’t really make it up” said Bates, “BAT is one of the most irresponsible and anti-social companies in the world. A university that is prepared to let them fund a centre in corporate social responsibility must be so blinded by greed that they are unable to recognise the absurdity and emptiness of their arguments.
“Obviously it is hard to regard Nottingham as a seat of learning or centre of academic excellence when the people in running the place are aggressively impervious to the facts, analysis and argument that destroy the credibility of the decision to take money from BAT.”
I think that the editor should resign whether or not the University keeps the money, however, since he has demonstrated a remarkable lack of tolerance and decency. As an editor of a prominent journal, he has considerable power and, I suppose, he uses that power to oppose smoking of tobacco products. One does not have to be a supporter of the tobacco industry to see that his position smacks of bias and bigotry. This does not bode well for the future of research.
It would be better, in my view, if the editor were to have attended to his editing and refrained from engaging in tobacco politics.
I've also learnt a lot from the vote. I imagined that 80-90% would say that Nottingham should give the money back and that a similar proportion would say that I should resign. I was right about the first part of the vote but wrong about the second part.
The main reason to conduct a poll over whether I should resign from Nottingham was to draw attention to the particular episode in Nottingham and the broader question of tobacco sponsorship of academia. In this we seem to have succeeded. When Nottingham first made the announcement before Christmas there was depressingly little debate, even in the BMJ. This time round the debate has been hot. And how. Responses to Richard Smith's offer to resign from Nottingham and the BMJ if NU didn't return BAT's funds are posted online. <I>Rapid Responses for Data Supplement: Survey: should the editor resign?</I>
Final results, with 1075 people responding:
Yes 84%
No 15%
Yes 54%
No 45%
Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ, is professor of medical journalism at Nottingham University, which has taken £3.8m from British American Tobacco to fund an international centre for the study of corporate responsibility. He argues that the university should return the money. The university's vice chancellor, Sir Colin Campbell, argues the opposite. Readers are asked to vote on bmj.com whether the university should return the money and whether Smith should resign if it doesn't. . .
The valuable collaborative medical research funded by the Cancer Research Campaign is based in the faculties of medicine and science; the British American Tobacco funding is to go to the business school in the faculty of law and social sciences.
In dialogue with the Cancer Research Campaign during 2000, the university indicated its intention to accept a donation from British American Tobacco. It further confirmed that, in accordance with the protocol, the new International Centre for the Study of Corporate Responsibility would be organisationally, fiscally, and physically separate from the Schools of Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmaceutical Sciences. . .
in furthering the university's research--and especially research that is relevant to the world's problems today--we welcome diverse sources of funding. In years to come, few people will question the fact that the University of Nottingham accepted funds from the tobacco industry. What they will see instead will be the high quality, globally relevant input to corporate social responsibility led by the university's business school
In years to come, few people will question the fact that the University of Nottingham accepted funds from the tobacco industry. What they will see instead will be the high quality, globally relevant input to corporate social responsibility led by the university's business school.Nottingham University vice chancellor, Sir Colin Campbell, on accepting £3.8m from BAT to fund an international centre for the study of corporate responsibility. Smith and Campbell, <I>For and against: Should Nottingham University give back its tobacco money?</I>
Britain's largest pro-smoking group has given an award to the University of Nottingham for accepting almost £4m in sponsorship from a tobacco company.
Forest says the university is entitled to an "intellectual bravery award" for accepting a £3.8m endowment from British American Tobacco (BAT), which makes brands like Rothmans, Dunhill and Lucky Strike.
The university has described the award as "irrelevant and inappropriate" and said the donation from BAT is a legitimate one.
It is being used to set up an International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. . .
Forest director Simon Clark admitted the university might be embarrassed by the award. . . "We get a lot of money from tobacco companies to run Forest. I'm not ashamed at all to receive money from the tobacco companies. "In a civilised society there are two sides to every debate."
Dear Sir Colin [Campbell], . . I am writing to express our dismay at the University of Nottingham’s decision to accept £3.8 million pounds from British American Tobacco for an International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. BAT is one of the world's most irresponsible and anti-social companies, and it is hardly surprising that your decision provoked widespread condemnation and incredulity.
I was particularly disturbed to hear you repeating tobacco industry rationalisations and apologia in media interviews earlier this week as you attempted to defend this decision. It is amazing just how subtle and rapid the influence of tainted money, especially in such large sums, can be.
Allow me to explain why many people regard BAT as an unsuitable sponsor for a Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. . .
Our view is that you have weighed the value of BAT's cash against the expected negative publicity and concluded that in return for riding a short-term storm, you would be happy to take their money. You have acted with cynicism and short-sightedness in uncritically taking money from such a tainted source, and, as a result, jeopardised the university's reputation and made it a laughing stock. As one journalist has put it "you couldn't make it up".
In the light of this, and very much more, we would like to ask you to reconsider the decision to accept BAT's money. . .
We have copied this letter to a number of prominent figures in Nottingham University to establish their views and to understand better how this decision was reached. We believe that there is widespread disquiet within the University and that if it emerges that you have ignored the wise counsel of colleagues and others with Nottingham University's wider interests at heart, then in our view you should step down.
We will be asking cancer and other charities to reconsider providing funding for any part of Nottingham University. . .
Should you wish to delve more deeply into BAT's record, a version of this letter, with links to source material, has been posted on our Internet site at www.ash.org.uk/?conduct -- Clive Bates
We have copied this letter to a number of prominent figures in Nottingham University to establish their views and to understand better how this decision was reached. We believe that there is widespread disquiet within the University and that if it emerges that you have ignored the wise counsel of colleagues and others with Nottingham University's wider interests at heart, then in our view you should step down. We will be asking cancer and other charities to reconsider providing funding for any part of Nottingham UniversityASH-London has posted Clive Bates' fierce, informative and uncompromising letter to Nottingham's Sir Colin Campbell, complete with supporting links and references. <I>Re: University of Nottingham’s decision to accept British American Tobacco sponsorship</I>