- Let’s be honest. There’s a clear link with Islam (£) by David Aaronovitch, The Times
- Intellectual property is an innovation killer by Joshua Lachkovic , KernalMag
- Dumb Idea Hall of Fame by Aaron David Miller, Foreign Policy
- Nadine Dorries threatens Cameron's Party Leadership by Nadine Dorries, Daily Mail
- Boris set for party leadership? by Traci Watson, USAToday
- Anti-Israel students deface Star of David at student conference by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post
- Jihadist Videos on University Facebook by Rupert Sutton, Huffington Post UK
- Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose by Alex Massie, Spectator UK
- Green tax on conservatories by James Slack and Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail
- Saudi princess: What I'd change about my country by Staff writers, BBC
Tobacco wars: University of Stirling vs. Phillip Morris Interntional
That some people do not agree with smokers' choices is no reason to start treating the law as a pick'n'mix counter, applying it only to groups we as a society are deemed to 'like'.
There has been much discussion over the last month on the role of social networking sites.
Cameron wants to shut down Twitter and Facebook every time trouble is scented on the horizon, for fear of armies of hoodies battering their way across the country. The rather less alarmist amongst us see the sites as a brave new world, bringing people into closer community no matter how far apart they are geographically.
Somewhere along that spectrum lies the rather cynical use of Facebook employed by Stirling University recently, when it set up a page entitled "Stirling University Freedom of Information Act". The page includes a poll asking:
"Researchers from Stirling University have undertaken surveys with young people (aged 11-16 years) asking about their views on smoking, views on tobacco marketing and their smoking behaviour. Philip Morris International, a tobacco manufacturer, has submitted a Freedom of Information request asking the University to hand over this data they have collected on young people and smoking. Q. What is your view on this? Do you think the University should or should not be required to hand over the data?"
Responses include the straightforward "should / should not" answers, alongside "Tobacco companies have no limit to how low they can stoop" and the somewhat confused "FoI is for individuals, not corporations!" (as respondents can also insert new responses, I assume these options didn't come from Stirling University themselves). Currently, the 'should nots' outweigh the 'shoulds' by roughly ten to one, not taking into account the other options.
However, all of this is rather disingenuous. As a publicly funded body, the university has to hand over the results of their research under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act whether they like it or not. And it's not just a matter of opinion over the wording of the law - the university was ordered to do so back in July by the Scottish Information Commissioner, after the university complained that the request was 'vexatious' - a complaint that was not upheld.
The summary of the ruling by the SIC (full details of which, including the information requested by Phillip Morris, can be found on the SIC's website) reads as follows:
"Philip Morris International (PMI) requested from the University of Stirling (the University) information relating to a survey which was carried out by the University's Centre for Tobacco Control Research (CTCR). The University refused to comply with PMI's request on the grounds that it was vexatious, in terms of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, PMI remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision. "Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the information request was not vexatious. He also found that the University had unreasonably sought clarification from PMI before responding to its request and that, as a consequence, had failed to respond to the request within the time limit set down by FOISA. "In addition, he found that the University did not fulfil its duty under section 15 of FOISA in relation to providing advice and assistance to PMI."
The University makes no bones about it's anti-smoking bias and credentials. On the 'About Us' web page of it's Centre for Tobacco Control Research, it states as its aims as:
To-Develop and evaluate interventions designed to prevent smoking uptake and encourage cessation.
Investigate the processes and effects of the tobacco industry's marketing activities, and on the basis of this undertaking, determine the most effective ways to counter them.
Evaluate specific tobacco control policies and identify those that successfully change smoking behaviour
In other words, it is declaring open hostility to a lawful, legitimate business with a client base of one quarter of this country's population. It has now broken the law in attempting to thwart that business from exercising it's legal right to examine any evidence that might affect it's trade; and it goes further still - in attempting to gain public support for that illegal act, furthering it's intention not to uphold the law.
If people do not like the product that Philip Morris manufactures, they are perfectly able to simply not buy the product. Indeed, various Government taxes and interventions have positively encouraged them in this course of action already. Therefore we must assume that the smoking population are happy with the product, know the risks (which are, of course, stated clearly on the packets), and have legitimate reasons for choosing to smoke. That some people do not agree with their choice is no reason to start treating the law as a pick'n'mix counter, applying it only to groups we as a society are deemed to 'like'.
Stirling University needs to stop messing around and release the data to PMI immediately.
Donna Edmunds is Director of Research at Progressive Vision (@ProgVis), a libertarian think-tank. She tweets at @Sussex
Print
The purpose of FOI's is enable policy making and the information and decisions leading to it, to become fully transparent. Anybody refusing to comply evidently has something they'd rather the rest of us tax paying mugs didn't see.
For Stirling read the rest of tobacco control.
I think the issue is not that they are being asked to hand over the results of the research - this has already been published but rather the RESEARCH DATA. The raw research data will have been obtained from participants and their parents/guardians who will have been given assurances that their answers etc.. would remain confidential - and how many of you would let your kid participate in a study in which a tobaco company could potentially get hold of the information to improve their marketing towards young people? Research data (I believe) taken from human participants falls under the Data Protection Act. I for one am not convinced a FOI request superceeds this Act and the rights of the participants. If it is ruled that raw research data should be released the implactions for research are vast. Who will feel confident in the assurances of a researcher as to who will have access to and how their information will be used? Not me and not many others I suspect.
You are misreporting the facts, why? Stirling University was never 'ordered to turn over the research'. The commisioner merely ruled that the request was not 'vexatious' and must be addressed. The university can still refuse on ground of public interest and other grounds as well. The research they are asking for deals with child smokers. If PMI went after this research directly it would be illegal.
The raw research data will be anonymised within the database in order to comply with the data protection act. PMI are not asking for the link to indentify the individuals interviewed - they just want the anonymised raw data. Sterling Univeristy may not like PMI but that isn't a reason to break the law. If they don't wamt to make reseach freely available under FOI they have a very simple option - don't take taxpayers money to do research
It doesn't matter whether the raw data is anonymised or not (actually it may be 'coded' data for the sake of further studies). It is standard practise for studies of this nature in teh consent forms to use phrases like 'the information you give will be kept confidentally and securely and only be accessable by the researcher(s)'. This being the case it seems far from ethical that information collected on this basis be imparted to a third party... (Coz - indeed, nail on the head there)
Who applies under the FOI is irrelevant. This tobacco company is not the only interested party. These days most academic journals, particularly those covering areas of potential controversy, such as econometrics, require authors to provide data and code as a prerequisite for publication. The anti tobacco industry has a history of idiosyncratic approaches to statistical analysis, funded by taxpayers, and it is time it was called to account. It would have been better had it been by academics and not by a tobacco company, but most academics don't smoke and so don't suffer the effects of bans, and have better things to do with their time. Individuals cannot be identified from this data, so there no reason to keep it secret; and eventually it won't be
@Sophie Actually consent forms generally promise to protect personnal data but not anonymised data; an ongoing approved trial consent forms states "In connection with the trial, your anonymised data will be transferred outside the European Economic Area. Standards of data protection may not be as high in these areas as they are in the UK"
There is no harm whatsoever in making anonymised data available under FOI and to suggest otherwise is wrong. People just don't like anyone exercising their freedom to smoke a legal product - which is not an excuse to break the law
Any publication that has Professor Linda Bauld as an author requires the closet of scrutiny. After all she did say that the smoking ban had "no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry". Also Prof Bauld works in anti tobacco control with Dr. Anna Gilmore who in my opinion has badly misled the public on the alleged reduction in heart attacks since the ban came into effect.
2002/03: 61,498
2003/04: 60,680 (a fall of 1.33%)
2004/05: 58,803 (a fall of 3.1%)
2005/06: 55,752 (a fall of 5.19%)
2006/07: 53,964 (a fall of 3.21%)
2007/08: 51,664 (a fall of 4.26%)
These are actual figures of heart attacks pre and post ban and you will spot no correlation.
One can only conclude Professor Bauld has her hands in the till yet again.
Sophie wrote... "The raw research data will have been obtained from participants and their parents/guardians who will have been given assurances that their answers etc.. would remain confidential..."
They would have been given those assurances yes, by researchers that knew full well that they were in no position to make them in the first place. So whichever way you look, it puts the university in the wrong. Don't go blaming PMI for the frailties of the researchers/uni!
'...legitimate reasons for choosing to smoke' Ha! Very droll.