Lax rules leave door open to big tobacco
Only two universities have firm guidelines against taking money from cigarette firms, survey reveals
Only two of Hong Kong's eight tertiary institutions - Baptist and Chinese universities - are known to have concrete guidelines against accepting funding from cigarette companies, a Sunday Morning Post survey has revealed.
Education sector experts and anti-smoking lobbyists have lamented the lack of effective safeguards preventing universities from taking tobacco money, and insist stronger guidelines are needed to protect the reputation of academics.
Controversy erupted last week after the Sunday Morning Post revealed that the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology took millions in funding from tobacco giant Philip Morris.
However, education officials have refused to intervene, citing the importance of institutional autonomy.
University Grants Committee deputy secretary-general Mary Tsang Fung-yee said the independent agency, which falls under the Education and Manpower Bureau and advises on the funding for the city's higher institutions, would not look into Philip Morris' funding of HKUST research.
The survey found that both HKUST and Polytechnic University have a policy of not taking tobacco money to help promote cigarettes. But neither had guidelines that mention funding for other activities, and only Polytechnic University has sent a memo to academic staff regarding this decision.
The University of Hong Kong, City and Lingnan universities, and the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd) do not have written guidelines on sources of funding.
However, a spokesman for HKU said the university frowned upon donations from cigarette companies for any purpose, and relied on tradition as a deterrent.
A spokeswoman for HKIEd said its donation committee met last year and agreed not to allow cigarette company sponsorship, but faculties were not told.
Baptist University, however, explicitly bans donations from tobacco companies, along with money from sources associated with alcohol, illegal gambling, arms manufacturing, or businesses of an unethical or illegal nature.
They are posted on the university's personnel office website for access by staff.
Chinese University said it did not accept funding from cigarette companies, but was unable to say where the guideline was laid out.
World Health Organisation consultant Judith Mackay said this was unacceptable.
'It seems [banning tobacco funding] isn't exactly on the top of their minds,' she said. 'It's not just the corruption of science and taking tainted money, but it also has to do with facilitating tobacco companies' campaigns ... to repositioning themselves as good corporate citizens,' Dr Mackay added.
Leading overseas institutions have also fallen for the lure of big tobacco's easy money in recent years.
In 1996, Cambridge University accepted #1.5 million ($28 million) from British American Tobacco to establish a chair in international relations, while the University of Nottingham took #3.8 million from the same company in 2001.
But some headway has been made recently in the drive to weed out tobacco funding from universities.
The Harvard Medical School in July said it would not take tobacco money, as did John Hopkins School of Medicine.
