The Columbia Choice

Columbia University had clearly precipitated itself into the midst of a medical-educational-ethical debate that could go on for years.

"Extraordinary sponsorship," said Dr. Ashbel C. Williams, president of the American Cancer Society, adding coolly that "we would welcome evidence on the biological effect of cigarettes with this new filter"--evidence that Strickman and Columbia might have been able to supply if they had held up their announcement for a few more months. One leading cancer researcher called it "downright peculiar" that Columbia had merely farmed out the filter experiments to a commercial laboratory--ignoring its own eminent medical researchers.

"One wishes the evidence would be presented scientifically," chided Dr. Ernest Wynder of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research. A Columbia-trained doctor complained that his alma mater had put "a safety tag on a lethal habit." Even the New York Daily News, generally against reformers and do-gooders, labeled the Columbia press conference "giddy hoopla."

To some critics, it seemed that Columbia had acquired a stake in getting more Americans to smoke more cigarettes--filtered. Not that precedents are lacking: all over the U.S., education benefits directly and indirectly from state and federal tobacco (to say nothing of liquor) taxes. Many university endowments keep tobacco stocks in their portfolios, prizing their steady earnings. And one great American university was founded with tobacco money, from the fortune of James B. Duke.

Giving Up. All the same, Columbia's filter financing seemed to come at a somewhat inauspicious moment. Medical experts are convinced, as Surgeon General William Stewart of the U.S. Public Health Service puts it, that "the lower the tar and nicotine content, the lower the general health danger." But what disturbed critics of Columbia's sweeping announcement (Columbia's press release called the filter "a development of far-reaching importance, which promises to benefit mankind") is the fact that tar and nicotine are not the only dangerous elements in cigarettes. Just the day before Strickman's filter was announced, HEW Secretary John Gardner told Congress that one-third of all deaths among American men aged 35 to 60 are hastened by cigarette smoking. Quite apart from the cancer question, said Gardner, smoking is the most important cause of broncho-pulmonary disease, is linked to stomach ulcers and heart disease (in which the death rate is 70% higher for smokers). Many researchers argue that the carbon monoxide, aldehydes and phenols contained in cigarette smoke are also pernicious--and are not stopped by filters. Moreover, some tars and nicotine still get through the Strickman filter. According to Dr. Stewart, "full protection can only come through giving up cigarettes altogether or not taking up the habit in the first place."

Going Along. To be sure, there were some negative votes among Columbia's 24 trustees when the university polled them to see if they favored backing the filter. But the majority seems to agree with President Kirk's view: "Since people are going to smoke anyway, we feel they should have the safest cigarette possible." This was also one of Secretary Gardner's recommendations.

According to Strickman, Columbia has now begun a new series of complex studies of the filter's effect on the gases in tobacco smoke, though not on living tissue, and the results may be announced within a few weeks. When asked why the university did not wait for such studies, Strickman replied: "You can research from now to dooms day. But you have to start some place. Do you have any other filters that can do what this one does?"

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.