Should UCLA be accepting money from a tobacco company to perform studies on animals? Even if the study helps us learn about the effects of nicotine addiction on teenagers, and possibly makes it easier to quit smoking cigarettes?
Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times ran a front-page story on the criticism UCLA is getting from all sorts of people, from animal-rights activists to anti-smoking organizations because of a questionably funded research program designed to understand nicotine addiction through teenage and monkey brains.
Anti-smoking groups are outraged that the university took $6 million from tobacco giant Philip Morris to fund the study. The Animal Liberation Front is doing what it does best ““ oversimplifying the question of animal testing by terrorizing UCLA professor Edythe London, the lead scientist on the three-year study.
California politicians find it disconcerting that the UCLA project is wrapped in secrecy and that UCLA has accepted what is perceived as dirty money from a notoriously shady tobacco company.
This “smoldering controversy” ““ what the Times’ over-the-top headline called it ““ is ethically complex on many levels. Some of the criticism is warranted; some of it is just absurd.
Let’s take a moment to break down each aspect of the study, which raises profound ethical questions because there is so much to consider.
For part of the study, UCLA scientists will test different techniques to give up cigarettes on 200 smokers between the age of 14 to 20, ages when the brain hasn’t fully matured, and compare the results to MRI scans conducted on 40 life-long smokers and 40 non-smokers. This is to try to understand why teenagers smoke, and whether psychological conditions like depression or attention deficit disorder might be a contributing factor.
Matt Meyers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids told the Times, “It’s stunning in this day and age that a university would do secret research for the tobacco industry on the brains of children.”
With due respect to Meyers, who is doing an honorable public service by keeping kids off cigarettes, it is laughable to characterize UCLA scientists as pawns in the tobacco companies’ Big Game. UCLA’s research, if it produces the type of results the scientists expect, will ultimately be a positive contribution to society. We know so little about the brain ““ what it responds to, how and why it changes over time ““ that it is short-sighted to get upset at this study. And it is far-fetched to buy into a conspiracy theory that puts Dr. London, or any UCLA scientists for that matter, in cahoots with Philip Morris.
The controversy over the source of the funding is overblown as well.
State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) thinks UCLA should not accept funding from tobacco companies, citing research universities such as Texas who refuse money from such an immoral corporation. Yee points to the fact that UCLA kept the source of the funding a secret for fear of public scrutiny as some sort of proof that the university knew it was wrong to accept money from Philip Morris. Or maybe UCLA kept the funding under wraps because officials knew a group of myopic anti-smoking activists would protest the study without considering its scientific benefit.
It is naive to think any money is pure. There’s nothing wrong with accepting money ““ even if it comes from people who profit off lung cancer and emphysema ““ if the money is going toward a good cause, like finding out easier ways of giving up smoking. It does not matter what Philip Morris’ intentions are. It only matters what the UCLA scientists are doing with the money.
As far as I can tell, the only ethical dilemma is the liquid nicotine tests on monkeys and rats, which will result in the killing of six to 12 monkeys in order to study their brains. Animal testing is perhaps the most complex of all scientific debates because it ultimately comes down to the valuation of these monkeys’ lives as compared to the health of humans. In one man’s opinion, as long as the animals are not being tortured or suffering unnecessary pain, then the sacrifice of a small number of monkeys is worth the scientific inquiry.
But I understand those who object to that opinion. What’s not acceptable is the North American Animal Liberation Front, which is nothing more than a group of violent lunatics, who terrorized Dr. London by flooding her home and placing “an explosive device” at her home just last week for these tests.
We live in a strange world where scientists such as Dr. London are considered controversial and ALF is considered an “activist organization.”
E-mail De Jong at adejong@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.