FUNDING SUPPORT—CUI BONO?
2007-06-12

Discussion of the morality of accepting industry funding received additional fuel in Germany after an agreement was reached between the Federal Ministry of Health and the Association of the Cigarette Industry, as well as various tobacco companies such as Philip Morris Pvt. Ltd, British American Tobacco (Germany) Pvt. Ltd, Reemtsma Cigarette Works Pvt. Ltd, JT International Germany Pvt. Ltd, Austria Tobacco Pvt. Ltd and Heintz van Landwyck, over a financial donation of €11 800 000 on 20 March 2002. These funds are meant to be used to support smoking prevention programmes without casting a slur on the product ‘tobacco’[1]. As the agreement became public, an open discussion was set into motion. Some of the potential beneficiaries of this donation, which was to be passed on further by the Federal ministry, expressed their opposition openly to the indirect promotion of their projects with money from the tobacco industry, whereas some others regarded it as an aid towards the realization of their projects. Most of the opponents expressed doubts concerning independence in the realization of smoking prevention programmes after receiving financial support from the tobacco industry, looking back to past experiences [2]. An interesting aspect of the discussion was the question of whether the tobacco industry was aiming to improve its image cleverly by promotion of smoking prevention [3]. This example underlines the importance of the discussion initiated by Adams [4]. Although financial support of projects with funds from the tobacco and alcohol industry is despicable, its existence cannot be denied. In view of the risk of influencing scientists through donors, any direct financial funding should therefore be rejected. Any guideline, however, should not remain limited to scientific projects. It would set a positive example if public institutions, officials, administrative authorities and politicians adhered to this principle. After all, financial support by a commercial organization invariably contains the seeds of direct or indirect profit motives through promotion. However, some questions remain open: how should public funds of a government, whose research promotion policy also follows a political aim (for example, in drugs policy), be regarded? How should one treat the funds originating from the pharmaceutical industries, which in some cases produce medications with a clear potential for the development of addictive disorders and always have a commercial motive? Scientists engaged in medical research face a problem, as universities expect the successful acquisition of third-party funds. Nevertheless, it is also true that in Germany the procurement of funds from the independent German Research Foundation (DFG) or from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research is preferred to that from the pharmaceutical industry, although the latter is also desired and encouraged. Although independence is also desired here, the financing of many scientific conferences by the pharmaceutical industry seems to be unavoidable (despite the fact that some societies, e.g. the German Society for Addiction Research, are in principle against sponsorship of its congresses by the industry and realizes them only with contributions of the participants and support of the Federal Ministry). The total rejection of all types of industrial promotional funds may not be the right alternative. Their channelling in independent foundations with independent assessors, public writs and transparent statements may prove to be a viable solution. One must have an understanding of the attempts of the interested parties to exercise some influence in the political sector, but at the same time there should be consensus that science should always be independent and uninfluenced. The suggestions from Adams point clearly in this direction and it may be hoped that they would result in long-lasting solutions and a consequent and obligatory adherence to them [4].