The proponents of the ban have a simple point: Tobacco companies sell legal products that kill millions of people every year and for decades have distorted scientific research in order to deflect threats to their business. By their logic, universities like Stanford and UC should have nothing to do with them.

Opponents of the ban, however, call it an infringement on “academic freedom” and claim that it will open the door to politically motivated efforts to squelch controversial research. “I am very concerned that we are changing academic policy, a core academic policy, to send a political message,” Stanford president John Hennessy told the faculty senate. Stanford’s provost, John Etchemendy, likewise worries about a “slippery slope,” as he told the San Jose Mercury News:

I receive frequently e-mails from faculty colleagues requesting, in effect, that Stanford faculty not be allowed to do such and such research, accept funding from such and such an organization, publish such and such views using the Stanford name as their affiliation.

Now, no one who cares about universities wants to see them badgered and henpecked by activists of every political persuasion. (Oddly enough, though, the medical schools at both Stanford and the University of California at San Francisco — which would both have the most to lose should such activism gain strength — both support the ban.) Still, there’s a pretty strong case to be made that tobacco money is sui generis so far as objectionable sources of research funding goes, for exactly the reasons the ban proponents suggest.

Other industries — oil, say, or pharmaceuticals or alcoholic beverages — certainly have their critics. But none of them combine quite the toxic mix of lies and lethality that made tobacco companies and their investors rich. It’s hard to see why any institution devoted to the advancement of knowledge and the betterment of public health would want anything to do with them or their money.

Except, of course, that it isn’t really hard at all. Universities are increasingly commercial-minded these days, and it is no more in the interest of someone like John Hennessy — whose own business acumen recently garnered him a front-page profile in the WSJ (subscription required) — to shut down a potential source of funding than it would be for a defense lawyer to turn down a well-heeled but obviously guilty client.

The irony here is that the financial stakes in the scheduled May 17 vote are actually quite low for Stanford, since exactly one professor currently holds a tobacco-funded research grant worth several hundred thousand dollars a year — and that will lapse in June. (At the University of California, by contrast, 19 different grants pull in $15.9 million in tobacco money, according to the Merc.) You’d think that would make it easier to do the right thing. And you would be wrong.

Now it appears that Congress may weigh in: The WSJ quotes Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark, a California Democrat, calling for changes in Medicare reimbursement to eliminate any incentive to overuse the drugs, which stimulate production of the red blood cells that carry oxygen.

More on “generic” biologics — Here are two takes on the move to allow copycat versions of biotech drugs that I neglected to mention in yesterday’s post on the subject. Writing at Forbes.com, Scott Gottlieb — former FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs, now a pundit at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute — makes the counterintuitive argument that copycat biotech drugs will speed the development of new drugs, even if they’re just simply improved versions of older ones.

Meanwhile, pharma/biotech consultant David E. Williams dismisses the biogenerics push as “a bad bill that deserves to die” on his Health Business Blog, but suggests that Congress could adopt a more straightforward solution: Simply mandate price cuts on biotech drugs once their patents expire. It’s such a wacky but weirdly intriguing idea that I can’t even tell if it makes sense, but I certainly doubt that Congress could muster the political will for such a naked exercise of government power — it simply violates too many current assumptions about the usefulness and necessity of markets.

Stem cell divisions — The president of California’s $3 billion stem-cell research program resigned abruptly on Tuesday, citing both health concerns (a recent diagnosis of prostate cancer) and tensions between patient advocates and biomedical academics over plans to spend up to $300 million on new research facilities. Zach Hall’s departure will now come earlier than expected — he’ll depart at the end of April instead of the end of June — but plans to name a successor are already underway. Despite his title, Hall wasn’t the head honcho of the California institute; that honor is reserved for Robert Klein II, chairman of the inaptly named Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, who is also rumored to have clashed with Hall more than once. David Jensen of the estimable California Stem Cell Report has all the details.

Dollars for doctors (and everyone else) — Why does U.S. healthcare cost so much? The economics blog Marginal Revolution hosted a fascinating debate on the subject earlier this week, prompted by Tyler Cowen’s capsule review of a new book by Maggie Mahar titled Money Driven Medicine. The argument is too complex to do it much justice here; the best summary I can make without writing an essay myself is that the entrepreneurial instincts of doctors and medical-technology suppliers (including drug companies), combined with weak resistance from desperate patients, leads to market failure, including drastic overuse — and misuse — of medical services. Don’t miss Mahar’s contribution to the Marginal Revolution debate in comments. Two other takes on the book are here and here.

In a similar vein, this post from the group blog Health Care Renewal aims to explain why so many academic researchers seek out funding from pharmaceutical and biotech companies these days. Turns out it’s not just the greed of companies eager to co-opt paragons of the ivory tower; instead, blogger Roy Poses suggests that university incentives similar to the ones that motivate car salesmen are at fault. Definitely worth a read if the question has ever crossed your mind.

Research odds and ends from the week that was:
• Scientists discovered a gene that appears to be key to “self-renewal” in both embryonic and adult stem cells.

• Surgeons are exploring ways of conducting minimally invasive procedures using “natural openings” in the body such as the mouth, the rectum or the vagina.

• Take that, white supremacists: Physical anthropologists now believe that European skin only lightened up 6,000 to 12,000 years ago, suggesting that “our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years” prior to that. The link is subscription-only, so here’s a brief snippet of the Science news article:

Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. “The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe,” molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.

Now it appears that Congress may weigh in: The WSJ quotes Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark, a California Democrat, calling for changes in Medicare reimbursement to eliminate any incentive to overuse the drugs, which stimulate production of the red blood cells that carry oxygen.

More on “generic” biologics — Here are two takes on the move to allow copycat versions of biotech drugs that I neglected to mention in yesterday’s post on the subject. Writing at Forbes.com, Scott Gottlieb — former FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs, now a pundit at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute — makes the counterintuitive argument that copycat biotech drugs will speed the development of new drugs, even if they’re just simply improved versions of older ones.

Meanwhile, pharma/biotech consultant David E. Williams dismisses the biogenerics push as “a bad bill that deserves to die” on his Health Business Blog, but suggests that Congress could adopt a more straightforward solution: Simply mandate price cuts on biotech drugs once their patents expire. It’s such a wacky but weirdly intriguing idea that I can’t even tell if it makes sense, but I certainly doubt that Congress could muster the political will for such a naked exercise of government power — it simply violates too many current assumptions about the usefulness and necessity of markets.

Stem cell divisions — The president of California’s $3 billion stem-cell research program resigned abruptly on Tuesday, citing both health concerns (a recent diagnosis of prostate cancer) and tensions between patient advocates and biomedical academics over plans to spend up to $300 million on new research facilities. Zach Hall’s departure will now come earlier than expected — he’ll depart at the end of April instead of the end of June — but plans to name a successor are already underway. Despite his title, Hall wasn’t the head honcho of the California institute; that honor is reserved for Robert Klein II, chairman of the inaptly named Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, who is also rumored to have clashed with Hall more than once. David Jensen of the estimable California Stem Cell Report has all the details.

Dollars for doctors (and everyone else) — Why does U.S. healthcare cost so much? The economics blog Marginal Revolution hosted a fascinating debate on the subject earlier this week, prompted by Tyler Cowen’s capsule review of a new book by Maggie Mahar titled Money Driven Medicine. The argument is too complex to do it much justice here; the best summary I can make without writing an essay myself is that the entrepreneurial instincts of doctors and medical-technology suppliers (including drug companies), combined with weak resistance from desperate patients, leads to market failure, including drastic overuse — and misuse — of medical services. Don’t miss Mahar’s contribution to the Marginal Revolution debate in comments. Two other takes on the book are here and here.

In a similar vein, this post from the group blog Health Care Renewal aims to explain why so many academic researchers seek out funding from pharmaceutical and biotech companies these days. Turns out it’s not just the greed of companies eager to co-opt paragons of the ivory tower; instead, blogger Roy Poses suggests that university incentives similar to the ones that motivate car salesmen are at fault. Definitely worth a read if the question has ever crossed your mind.

Research odds and ends from the week that was:
• Scientists discovered a gene that appears to be key to “self-renewal” in both embryonic and adult stem cells.

• Surgeons are exploring ways of conducting minimally invasive procedures using “natural openings” in the body such as the mouth, the rectum or the vagina.

• Take that, white supremacists: Physical anthropologists now believe that European skin only lightened up 6,000 to 12,000 years ago, suggesting that “our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years” prior to that. The link is subscription-only, so here’s a brief snippet of the Science news article:

Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. “The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe,” molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.