A research institution that refuses to publish information - appears to be a paradox, doesn't it? But, despite the contradiction, that's exactly what Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and seven other major universities have recently become.
The latest round in the fight against Big Tobacco puts America's favorite addiction on the defensive. In 1999, the Justice Department filed suit against Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, accusing them of lying to the public since the 1950s by claiming ignorance over the health risks of smoking and the addictive properties of nicotine.
So, in order for the tobacco companies to bolster their defense that they really didn't know anything about the dangers of cigarettes they have subpoenaed the universities for records dating back to the 1940s relating to governmental research on tobacco. Their hope is that the records from that era will indicate a lack of conclusive evidence of the health risks of smoking, which, of course, helps their case.
But, not friends of Big Tobacco, every subpoenaed university except for North Carolina has refused to comply. The universities charge that this requires their professors to conduct exhaustive searches over decades of notes and correspondences. They also fear that this will expose their work to such scrutiny that it will ultimately undermine their field.
The first argument violates the axiom of existing as a research university: to conduct and publicize research. Withholding information runs counter to their fundamental purpose of spreading knowledge for the public good.
Also, selective discrimination certainly does nothing improve their reputations. Universities were more than willing to offer their services to the government in anti-tobacco research. Regardless of one's opinion of the shady business practices of cigarette companies, shutting them out is unfair and entangles academia in politics, a web the academic community has shuns in nearly all matters save financial.
Estelle A. Fishbein, a lawyer for Johns Hopkins, complains, "The tobacco companies have commenced nothing short of a campaign of harassment against the academic institutions" (New York Times, 1/20/02). Overblown grievances like these make it seem like the act of sifting through old records renders chains professors to their desks. For starters, it's fairly obvious that professors will simply assign the tobacco research to members of the research teams, such as graduate students, instead of conducting it themselves.
But in reality, they shouldn't even have to dig. Information so important to the public health, and with so many modern legal implications, should already exist in the public domain and thus easy to access.
On the issue of scrutiny, universities fear that such exposure will discourage people from entering the field. And next, they'll complain that this violates their right to privacy. Other than the fact that there is no evidence to suggest the validity of this unfounded fear, the universities are missing the point. Research this controversial actually demands scrutiny. That way, it can be presented to the public and debated, and no one will have to dig through dusty records again.
Transcending the issue of the apparent lack of work ethic among the universities is a matter of justice. Just because tobacco companies have tried to use the courts in the past doesn't mean that now is the time to use the system against them. Withholding records is like withholding evidence in court. The law is supposed to be applied equally, and subpoenas are not supposed to be discarded.
Ironically, the universities might actually help Big Tobacco in the end. A lack of evidence is enough for them to declare a mistrial, and only delays the matter to their advantage. It's no secret that the cigarette companies want to use the records to proclaim plausible deniability about the health risks of smoking. Even if the old records support them, the government can always find some other way to fight back.
The battle against Big Tobacco is an enduring legal struggle. And there has never been a doubt that these companies have used the justice system as a shield to make amusing claims like, "Smoking cigarettes won't kill your baby," or "Joe Camel wasn't meant to target kids." We may not agree with the way the companies use it as a shield, but it's important that they, like every other business and individual in America, are given sufficient opportunity to prove themselves innocence - or guilt.
