A divided Faculty Senate voted 21-10 yesterday against a controversial resolution that would have banned tobacco companies from funding University-sponsored research projects.

The measure — which proposed that “Stanford University will not enter into sponsored research agreements with companies that make or market tobacco products” — pitted faculty and administrators against one another at yesterday’s meeting.

Proponents of the resolution argued that the University had a moral responsibility to dissociate itself from the tobacco industry, which they said manipulates University research for its own ends.

“This research is very effectively used by the tobacco industry to increase the rate of smoking,” said Pathology and Genetics Prof. Andrew Fire who won the Nobel Prize last year.

By sponsoring tobacco-funded research, Drama and Classics Prof. Rush Rehm Ph.D. ‘85 argued, the University is providing “a legitimization of an industry that is spreading death and disease throughout the world.”

The resolution’s opponents, however, said they believed that barring tobacco companies from funding University-sponsored research would lead to a “slippery slope” for further research bans and would infringe upon academic freedom.

“I believe quite firmly that this funding ban is not about research, but about issues of academic freedom,” said Provost John Etchemendy Ph.D. ‘82.

President John Hennessy said he opposed the resolution on the grounds that its passage would have a negative impact on academic freedom.

By supporting the measure, Hennessy told the Senate, “you would undercut the ability of the Provost and myself to support your rights to academic freedom.”

The president cited the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, as well as energy giants BP and Exxon-Mobil — all of which provide large amounts of funding to the University — as potential sources of funding that could be affected by the precedent set in prohibiting tobacco-funded research.

Civil and Environmental Engineering Prof. Jeffrey Koseff M.S. ‘78 reminded senators that outside sources provide the bulk of funding for University-sponsored research projects.

“To suggest that one’s freedom to do research is not going to be hindered by limiting potential outside sources of funding is simply wrong,” he said.

Law Prof. Hank Greely ‘74, a staunch supporter and co-signer of the resolution, said that the University’s moral obligation to divorce itself from tobacco companies should trump any threats to academic freedom, which he said have not arisen at other institutions that have banned tobacco-funded research.

“The tobacco industry has caused, is causing and will continue to cause incredible human carnage around the world,” Greely said. “We should not help them. We should do the right thing.”

Greely cited a number of institutions — such as the medical schools at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Arizona and The Ohio State University — as examples of places where the prohibition of tobacco industry funding has not led to further bans on other sources of funding. Stanford would have been the first institution to initiate a University-wide ban on tobacco money.

In the end, however, the resolution’s opponents had their way, as the measure was defeated in a decisive yet divided vote.

“I felt very strongly that a change in the policy would undermine academic freedom,” Hennessy said after the meeting. “There are a few things we protect above all else at this University and those include academic freedom and freedom of expression. The minute you infringe upon those, you can run into trouble.”

“I think tobacco companies are evil and filled with bad people,” he added, “but I think you have to worry about academic freedom unraveling.”

For his part, Greely expressed chagrin after the meeting, but he did recognize a silver lining in the resolution’s failure.

“I was disappointed,” he said, “but I wasn’t surprised. I’m glad we had this discussion. I hope it pushes forward discussion among the faculty about morality.”