Integrity in Science: UC delays tobacco funds vote/ Correction Re: Veritox WSJ

[Guest guest]

Integrity in Science Watch

Jan 22, 2007

Correction

Last week's Integrity in Science Watch inaccurately reported that

Hardin and Bruce Kelman are principals at a law firm paid $375 to $500 an hour

as

defense counsel in mold lawsuits. In fact, Hardin and Kelman are paid $375

to $500 an hour in their role as principals of the environmental risk

management company Veritox Inc., a firm that regularly works for the defense in

mold

cases. Integrity in Science Watch regrets the error.

UC Regents Weigh Whether Schools Should Shun Tobacco Money

University of California regents voted last week to postpone until May a

decision on whether scientists should be banned from taking money from the

tobacco industry to give faculty members time to comment on the proposal, the

_Sacramento Bee_ (http://www.sacbee.com/293/story/110183.html) reported.

Supporters of the proposal note that taking money from tobacco companies could

damage

the university system's reputation because of the industry's reputation for

distorting research. The UC system had 19 active grants worth $16 million

funded by the tobacco industry in late 2006, all from Philip , the

president's office said.

UC delays tobacco funds vote

By Peyton Dahlberg - Bee Staff Writer

Published 12:00 am PST Friday, January 19, 2007

Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A4

_Print_ (http://www.sacbee.com/293/v-print/story/110183.html) | _E-Mail_

(http://www.sacbee.com/293/v-email/story/110183.html) | _Comments (0)_

(http://www.sacbee.com/293/story/110183.html#comments_here)

University of California faculty members should be asked to state their

position much more clearly on whether researchers should be banned from taking

tobacco industry funds, UC regents agreed Thursday.

The regents were expected to vote Thursday on a proposed tobacco research

funding ban. They postponed the vote until May to give the university system's

Academic Senate time to comment on the draft proposal....

The Academic Senate has taken up the topic before, but has issued general and

sometimes conflicting pronouncements, with members noting the faculty is

sharply divided on the issue....

One of the key proponents of the funding ban said he fears this is an

indirect way to kill it....

Glantz and others had argued that the tobacco industry has such a long track

record of distorting research results that taking its money discredits the

university.....

However, several regents said Thursday that banning tobacco funding would

infringe on academic freedom and send a message that UC doesn't trust the

integrity of its own faculty...

The UC system had 19 active grants funded by the tobacco industry in late

2006, all from Philip , totaling $16 million, the president's office

said.

Exerpt from the Wall Street Journal article, " Amid Mold Suits, Experts Wear

Two Hats " , by Armstrong

" The paper's [ACOEM Mold Statement] third author was Saxon, then

chief of clinical immunology and allergy at the medical school of the

University

of California, Los Angeles. He, too, has served as a defense expert in

numerous mold suits. Dr. Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his help. If

called

to testify in court, his rate rises to $720 an hour, according to a

deposition he gave.

Until he retired from UCLA in September, money he earned as a legal-defense

expert was paid to the university, and he says UCLA then gave him a little

less than half of it. Dr. Saxon estimates he generates $250,000 to $500,000 a

year from expert defense work..... "

Which means the Regents of the UC generated approx $300,000 to $600,000 per

year, just off of Dr. Saxon's defense testimony alone!!! Tobacco money?

Insurance litigation money?

The UC system is a teaching university system. Sounds like " Do Not

Research " grants to me.

Sharon