NCI Spends Precious Research Funds On Political Advocacy
Date of original release: 03/22/01
One year ago I sent a Freedom of Information request to the National Cancer Institute, asking for information on NCI's funding of Professor Stanton Glantz's anti-smoking research.
A few days ago I received a response.
The NCI says its ongoing grant for Glantz's "research" (payable to the University of California) is in its seventh year, and that "Total funding for years 3-7 is $2,074,576.00. Years 8 through 12 are future years. Total funding in future years has been requested at $1,512,654.00."
I should think cancer victims would be outraged that NCI is giving millions to Glantz and his university for anti-tobacco political research as opposed to legitimate cancer research. The American Cancer Society also funds Glantz's political work.
How do NCI and ACS explain that they're spending precious research dollars on an activist who's so driven by his own anti-smoking agenda that he wants to "bloody" any politician who dares go against him?
For example, Glantz says "In each state one or two politicians seem to be taking the lead in pushing the industry's position (at least publicly) . . . If they can be bloodied, it could well scare the others off." "Fear," says Glantz, "is a great motivator for politicians."
What kind of a researcher wants to "bloody" anyone who doesn't agree with him? How do NCI and ACS justify funding such a person?
Also, how do NCI and ACS justify funding Glantz who apparently only does tobacco-related research if he knows in ADVANCE how it will come out?
In Glantz's own words: "and that's the question that I have applied to my research relating to tobacco. If this comes out the way I think, will it make a difference? And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don't know then we don't bother. Okay? And that's the criteria." (Anti-smoking convention, Los Angeles, CA, October 2, 1992, "Revolt Against Tobacco." Transcript p. 14)
Well no, Glantz. Last I looked it wasn't okay.