VCU, Philip Morris Deal Strange But 'Usual?'

Source from:  SARAH SONIES - Opinion Editor 8/28/08 08/29/2008

The New York Times painted a shameful picture of VCU May 2008 by printing a controversial story about the university accepting research grants from Richmond-based tobacco company Philip Morris. The New York Times stated that "a contract with extremely restrictive terms" was signed with Philip Morris. The story was located in the "U.S." section of the newspaper and was not necessarily eye-catching. However, to those affi liated with VCU, this was big news-especially as this was the only time many of my peers had heard of VCU accepting funding from a tobacco company. To be honest, the first I heard of the article was when I received President Eugene P. Trani's e-mail as he attempted to nullify the situation May 9-the morning after the article ran in The New York Times. Obviously, I did not understand fully the e-mail, which stated The New York Times printed "information taken out of context." However, even after doing my research, I still am very confused. Trani's e-mail also stated "the article revolved around a research-services agreement, but applied the standards of investigator-initiated research." The typical college student, who has no background in business transaction, could not understand this statement clearly, without knowing something about the issue at hand. The National Cancer Institute Web site defines "investigator-initiated research" as "research independently conceived and developed by scientists." The research is developed by Philip Morris and not by individual VCU scientists. This creates a shakier issue, as it makes Trani's e-mail sound like VCU is doing favors for Philip Morris tobacco research in exchange for money. Theoretically, I do not see the issue with accepting the funding from Philip Morris. However, the problem I do have is VCU kept the funding from a tobacco company a secret, as if there was something to hide. The e-mail released May 9 seemed like a giant press release, instead of providing the real explanation for why that article ran in The New York Times. Enditem