THE Mcgill
Editor-in-Chief Carolina Millán Ronchetti editor@mcgilltribune.com Managing Editors Ben Carter-Whitney bcarterwhitney@mcgilltribune.com Erica Friesen efriesen@mcgilltribune.com Jacqueline Galbraith jgalbraith@mcgilltribune.com Production Manager Steven Lampert slampert@mcgilltribune.com News Editors Jessica Fu, Samuel Pinto, and Emma Windfeld news@mcgilltribune.com Opinion Editor Abraham Moussako opinion@mcgilltribune.com Science & Technology Editor Caity Hui scitech@mcgilltribune.com Student Living Editor Marlee Vinegar studentliving@mcgilltribune.com Features Editor Jenny Shen features@mcgilltribune.com Arts & Entertainment Editors Max Berger and William Burgess arts@mcgilltribune.com Sports Editors Mayaz Alam and Remi Lu sports@mcgilltribune.com Photo Editors Alexandra Allaire and Wendy Chen photo@mcgilltribune.com Creative Director Alessandra Hechanova ahechanova@mcgilltribune.com Design Editors Yael Chapman and Maryse Thomas design@mcgilltribune.com Online Editor Brontë Martin online@mcgilltribune.com Copy Editor Adrien Hu copy@mcgilltribune.com Advertising Executives Spoon Jung and Daniel Kang ads@mcgilltribune.com Publisher Chad Ronalds
TPS Board of Directors
Shadi Afana, Anand Bery, Jonathan Fielding, Abhishek Gupta, Adrien Hu, Steven Lampert, Chris Liu, Carolina Millán Ronchetti, Elisa Muyl, and Simon Poitrimolt
Contributors
Haaris Aziz, James Chapman, Meghan Collie, Julia Donahue, Devin Bissky Dziadyk, Wyatt Fine-Gagné, Eman Jeddy, Evie Kaczmarek, Lauren Konken, Chris Liu, Krishanth Manckazen, Alexander Messina, Martin Molpeceres, Jonathan Mooney, Jack Neal, Alycia Noë, Luke Orlando Michael Paolucci, Josh Redel, Aaron Rose, Jeremy Schipper, Samiha Sharif, Kate Sheridan, Andrew Su, Elie Waitzer, Natan Weinberger, Dorothy Yang
Tribune Office Shatner University Centre Suite 110, 3480 McTavish Montreal, QC H3A 0E7 T: 514.398.6789
The McGill Tribune is an editorially autonomous newspaper published by the Société de Publication de la Tribune, a student society of McGill University. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of The McGill Tribune and the Société de Publication de la Tribune, and does not necessarily represent the views of McGill University. Letters to the editor may be sent to editor@mcgilltribune.com and must include the contributor’s name, program and year and contact information. Letters should be kept under 300 words and submitted only to the Tribune. Submissions judged by the Tribune Publication Society to be libellous, sexist, racist, homophobic or solely promotional in nature will not be published. The Tribune reserves the right to edit all contributions. Editorials are decided upon and written by the editorial board. All other opinions are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the McGill Tribune, its editors or its staff. Please recycle this newspaper.
opinion editorial
Asbestos conference not a solution to corporate-funded research Last Tuesday, McGill hosted the “Asbestos: Dialogue for the Future” conference, a full-day symposium on McGill’s role in asbestos research, asbestos as a substance, and the broader role of corporate funding in the university environment. The conference was the result of one of the recommendations made in a 2012 internal review of a series of hotly contested McGill studies of asbestos from the 1960s to the 1990s. These studies, conducted by now-retired McGill professor John Corbett McDonald, were funded by the lobbying arm of the Quebec asbestos industry. The research concluded that under certain levels of exposure, asbestos was not only “innocuous” to mine workers, but even had a “protective” effect. McGill’s role in this research triggered strong reaction both in the scientific community and on campus after a CBC documentary in early 2012 brought the shortcomings of the research into sharp relief. Chief among the issues was the close relationship between McGill and the asbestos industry during the course of these studies, as well as the continued use of these studies to support Canadian exports of asbestos to poorer nations. There is nothing that can be
done to fully repair the harm—both to the asbestos mine workers in Quebec and to those exposed to asbestos in countries Canada has exported to—that the original research may have helped precipitate. However, the conference does represent an effort, however halting, towards creating the sort of institutional protections that would prevent a similar situation from arising in the future. During his presentation, David Egilman, a professor at Brown University’s Alpert Medical School–and a valiant critic of McDonald’s studies–argued that in the specific case of the asbestos studies, the unions and workers of the Quebec mines examined should have been given money to hire independent experts to look at the research methodology and data. Such independent oversight should aim to prevent instances of university-corporate collusion like the one that makes McDonald’s research so problematic today. At the final panel, additional recommendations were proposed. Professor Daniel Weinstock pointed out that universities often see themselves to be in a weaker negotiating position vis-à-vis corporations than they are be. The American Association of University Professors pre-
pared a package of suggested “best practices” for universities in dealing with corporations, including prohibiting faculty members from lending their names to ghostwritten corporate papers, and discouraging faculty members from participating in corporate-funded studies where not all research results would be available to third-party investigators.
“The conference
does represent an effort, however halting, towards preventing a similar situation from arising in the future
”
McGill’s current regulations on conflict of interest, which were ratified in 2009, do apply to all members of the university community, and the university does already have multiple Research Ethics Boards which examine project proposals. The current regulations on research conduct, approved in 2010, do prohibit researchers from entering into agreements which allow interested
parties to suppress results (rule 3.8 of the “Regulation on the Conduct of Research). Still, they do not require researchers to bring in ongoing third party oversight for corporatesponsored projects. The university should give serious consideration to establishing such a framework. If the university truly wants to look to the future, more safeguards should be in place. This debate still leaves the question of what should be done with McDonald’s studies, especially his 1998 paper. Critics, including anti-asbestos advocate Kathleen Ruff, have argued that the ethical review of the papers already undertaken by McGill’s research ethics officer was severely flawed by not being carried out through a third-party. Establishing a truly independent review of these studies would be the least that can come out of this conference. The asbestos conference this past Tuesday was worthwhile insofar as it continued the conversation this university needs to have–not only about the past, but about the future of corporate-funded research. To amount to anything more than talk, however, the discussion should lead to action; the issue can’t end here.
Commentary Faculty of Arts gets short shrift Lauren Konken Columnist It may have been two weeks ago, but announcements at the first meeting of the Faculty of Arts Committee concerning the Teaching and Learning Spaces (TLS) budget remain on my mind. At this meeting, Associate Dean Gillian Lane-Mercier announced the results from the TLS working group. For the 2014-2015 year, the IT budget used to upgrade classrooms under the committee has been frozen due to budget cuts. What remains is a general maintenance fund that will be divvied up among all of McGill’s faculties. The Faculty of Arts was described as the “poor cousin” by those leading the committee session, which left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Sure, renovating classrooms for Science, Engineering and even
Management students seems, on the face of things, ‘more beneficial.’ But why is this the case? As a student representative sitting on the committee, I asked the panel at large why a general maintenance budget wasn’t being used to fix lecture halls like Leacock 132, where the floor tiles in the stairs have been known to slide off and the seat tablets are half broken. Professor Christopher Manfredi responded in saying that lecture halls like Leacock 132 are primarily used by Science students, and that Arts students use large lecture halls in Engineering and Medicine buildings as well. It seemed to me like an evasive response. I walked away with the feeling that, because a room like Leacock 132 is used frequently by Science students, the Faculty of Arts doesn’t want to pay to renovate it. However, because it’s an Arts building, the Faculty of Science won’t ever request muchneeded renovations. Thus the room is left in near permanent limbo This sounds a lot like a classic political science dilemma surround-
ing a public good, no? Lane-Mercier iterated that the faculty’s priority was in fact Arts West 120 and that priority for other rooms will be addressed in the next meeting, as previous priorities will need to be revisited given the tight maintenance budget. Why is it that Arts is considered the poor cousin in all of these debates? In the year’s first senate meeting, Campaign McGill, the university’s fundraising drive, failed to highlight the notable accomplishments of the Faculty of Arts in attaining alumni, corporation, and other donations. In 2012, the Faculty raised the highest amount of money out of all those on campus, even Medicine. But, Manfredi himself pointed out that Arts has never had a Lorne Trottier or a Marcel Desautels–individual donors and alumni that committed tens of millions to the Engineering and Management faculties, respectively. One student rep asked whether Arts simply failed to produce anyone of the same calibre. Manfredi replied that certainly
wasn’t the case, but that of course they were always working on the issue. Perhaps I take issues like this more personally than some. Why is the Faculty of Arts, which is training tomorrow’s politicians, economists, writers, anthropologists, historians—just to name a few—so under-prioritized? Why, even normatively speaking, is it harder for me to sell myself as a student of political science than as a student of pharmacology? Is it because my career prospects appear more uncertain? Perhaps, but this is still disconcerting overall. Such budget constraints and the politics of allocating committees such as the TLS working group will likely ensure that the Faculty of Arts remains the poor cousin at the table. It seems unlikely that we’ll have a Trottier or Desautels coming to our rescue anytime soon.