Nine of the 10 universities subpoenaed by various tobacco companies have chosen not to comply with the industry's requests for information concerning research the schools conducted on the health effects of smoking.
Many of the universities have stated that the subpoenas are not specific enough in their requests for information and that digging into decades-old material would infringe on the confidentiality of both faculty and research subjects.
The tobacco companies hope to use the research in their defense against a 1999 federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Of the universities subpoenaed by the companies, including Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, only North Carolina State University has decided to comply.
The other universities subpoenaed were Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, New York University, the University of Arizona, the University of Kentucky and four University of California campuses.
"In three words, [the subpoena is] too broad. That would require untold numbers of manhours to unearth these documents, wherever they may be," University of Kentucky spokesman George Lewis said. "This goes back to 1965."
"Complying with the request would be daunting, and an infringement on faculty rights," Lewis added. "The university has worked with tobacco farmers for decades. The university also runs a Tobacco and Health Research Institute. Potentially, all of that work could fall into the scope of the subpoena."
The Justice Department suit alleges that for up to a half-century, tobacco companies have not been straightforward with the public about the possibly harmful and addictive effects of smoking.
Philip Morris spokesman John Sorrells said that the subpoenas are a necessary part of the tobacco companies' defense.
"We believe that the subpoenas were narrowly tailored and targeted information required for our defense against the Justice Department lawsuit," Sorrells said.
"These eight [universities] were identified because we believe they have been doing smoking and health research funded by the government, and it's simply part of the discovery for this case," Sorrells added.
University Provost Robert Barchi agreed with the universities' characterization of the subpoenas as less-than-clearly defined.
"The subpoenas that the universities received seemed overly broad, and complying with the subpoenas would result in violating confidentiality in many of the human trials," Barchi said.
"Also, I think there is the broader issue of academic freedom and invasion of privacy of our faculty, given the very broad scope of the request," he added.
Although Penn was not one of the universities subpoenaed, Barchi said that if the University were, it would likely respond in the same fashion as those institutions that did not comply.
"If we were to receive such a request, we would certainly look at it very, very carefully, and I'm sure we would probably be responding in much the same way as many of the other universities already have," he said.
As Pennsylvania's top recipient of National Institutes of Health funding, Penn benefited significantly from the national tobacco settlement last year, receiving approximately $8.7 million.
Barchi said that whether Penn might benefit from another tobacco settlement resulting from the 1999 suit would depend "entirely on the nature of the settlement."
"Research in general has benefited from the tobacco settlement," Barchi said. "Given that Penn is a major site for health-related research, our faculty members would certainly participate in that activity."
