On September 20, the University of California’s board of regents discussed Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante’s proposal that funding from tobacco companies should no longer be accepted for research. Although they admitted such funding comprises an “extremely small portion” of overall research grants, Bustamante and other proponents argued that accepting such money undercuts the credibility of the University and its research.

The discussion was prompted by an August 17 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, which held that tobacco companies are guilty of racketeering charges for intentionally and fraudulently misleading the public about the effects of tobacco. Kessler wrote that companies “marketed and sold their lethal products with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.”

Having already applauded the Medical School’s decision to cut off pharmaceutical lobbying via seemingly trivial handouts, we feel that the influence of grants by tobacco companies is also worth examining.

Just as pharmaceutical salesmen do not distribute pens promoting Xanex without certain expected results, it is unlikely that the tobacco industry would sponsor research with entirely innocent and altruistic motives.

Still, the issue is more complicated than free lunches. If we begin to limit research grants based on the source of money rather than how it is used, where do we stop? Furthermore, the UC Academic Senate concluded in an October 11 meeting on the topic, limiting grants could have a deleterious effect on academic freedom. As a result, they made a formal recommendation to the regents against the proposed restrictions.

We agree. Research must not be condemned based on its source of funding. Instead, the legitimacy of the research must lie in the credibility of the data. If results are significantly out of sync with the scientific community and cannot be replicated, this is a much more telling sign of compromised research than the origin of the grant money.

While it is still useful to keep in mind what companies may try to achieve with their contributions, the importance of academic freedom to select and fund projects with minimal bureaucratic interference. Stanford’s Public Affairs Office was only aware of one current project involving any tobacco-related funding and described such funding as “rare.”

We believe that both Judge Kessler’s condemnation of the tobacco industry and the spirit of Bustamante’s proposal to the UC regents were spot-on. And it is important for our university to take morality into its decisions, not through partisan political positions, but rather avoiding complicity in unethical behavior, in order to set an example for students and, indeed, the entire academic community.

But because tobacco industry grants are not a significant source of funding, because Stanford has its own strict policies regarding academic and research standards and because we trust our faculty’s serious commitment to objectivity, we do not believe a top-down ban on tobacco company money is necessary.