Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Cancer scientists' pensions invested in tobac


questionmark

Recommended Posts

Quote

Scientists funded by Cancer Research UK who spend their lives hunting for cures for the disease are among thousands of academics whose pensions are invested in the tobacco industry, the Guardian can reveal.

The latest annual report for the university staff’s pension fund shows it had £211m invested in British American Tobacco in the year to 31 March 2015 – its fifth biggest listed equities holding.

The Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) – the official name for the fund for university academics and staff – was worth £49bn in 2015. The BAT holding is not the only controversial investment; its biggest holding was £344m in Royal Dutch Shell.

Read more on the Guardian

Well, speaking of Sisyphus tasks....

Quote

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 How can this possibly be in line with the fact that most of us will retire comfortably on money earned from tobacco investments?”

 UUK spokesperson said, “so long as that ensures that the assets of the scheme are invested in the best financial interests of members and their beneficiaries.”

it invested $235 million in British American Tobacco between March 2014 and March 2015.

 Fifteen years ago the tobacco industry was declining, investors fleeing on a global scale, but it’s turned around since.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/29/cancer-scientists-pensions-invested-in-tobacco-bat

Each of those paragraphs leaves a very sour taste in my mouth...and its not the tobacco.

Someone from the cancer  group knew where the money was being invested.

If the tobacco industry was declining and IF they had gone out of business and IF cancer cases had decreased, then how would the cancer researches been in a position to afford to earn enough to invest $235 million  in one year? 

Smoking is one cause of cancer, so what to do? invest in a tobacco company while researching a cure for er....what? other cancers not caused by smoking....seems cancer research need the smokers to keep on smoking. And when something you do not want around is declining, the last thing you do is make sure it does not go out of business.....unless it is more beneficial to do otherwise. (as stated in the above link)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i do not see what is the big deal, tobacco companies make money, thus people invest their 401k with it.

would it be any different than kraft company that makes processed food, and in no less dangerous than cigarettes?

Edited by aztek
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aztek said:

i do not see what is the big deal, tobacco companies make money, thus people invest their 401k with it.

would it be any different than kraft company that makes processed food, and in no less dangerous than cigarettes?

To the contrary of cigarettes there actually is healthy processed food. But that is less the point here. Imagine the problem any of the above scientists would have in revealing the actual smoking gun that could ruin big tobacco, while at the same time being aware that it would be the end of most of their pension.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aztek said:

i do not see what is the big deal, tobacco companies make money, thus people invest their 401k with it.

would it be any different than kraft company that makes processed food, and in no less dangerous than cigarettes?

I do see what the big deal is and think it is pretty disgusting, but we can not be too harsh on them, they have allowed us to see where all the money goes: here are the accounts for 2014/2015, they do not have to state where their pensions are invested.:ph34r:

We will always be honest and transparent about where your money goes (and you can read our recent reports and accounts here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the majority of people quit using tobacco and cancer was greatly reduced, those scientist would be out of work.

Even governments won't ban tobacco because they get billions off the taxes. It's all about money.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, aztek said:

what do you mean? i do not have to state where i invest my 401k either,  and neither do you. i'm not sure i follow you here.

I was pointing out that they do not know where the pensions are being invested..........allegedly. 

The thing is, this is an organisation which raises millions each year from people who have some connection with cancer, be it themselves, a loved one or a friend....not sure that those (non smokers or someone who has lost someone to smoking)  donating would take to kindly that the researchers are keeping the tobacco companies in business.,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

 How can this possibly be in line with the fact that most of us will retire comfortably on money earned from tobacco investments?”

 UUK spokesperson said, “so long as that ensures that the assets of the scheme are invested in the best financial interests of members and their beneficiaries.”

it invested $235 million in British American Tobacco between March 2014 and March 2015.

 Fifteen years ago the tobacco industry was declining, investors fleeing on a global scale, but it’s turned around since.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/29/cancer-scientists-pensions-invested-in-tobacco-bat

Each of those paragraphs leaves a very sour taste in my mouth...and its not the tobacco.

Someone from the cancer  group knew where the money was being invested.

If the tobacco industry was declining and IF they had gone out of business and IF cancer cases had decreased, then how would the cancer researches be in a position to afford to earn enough to invest $235 million  in one year? 

Smoking is one cause of cancer, so what to do? invest in a tobacco company while researching a cure for er....what? other cancers not caused by smoking....seems cancer research need the smokers to keep on smoking. And when something you do not want around is declining, the last thing you do is make sure it does not go out of business.....unless it is more beneficial to do otherwise. (as stated in the above link)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, freetoroam said:

I was pointing out that they do not know where the pensions are being invested..........allegedly. 

 

i believe that, they leave it up to the firm, to find best companies to invest. i invest in 3 different companies\mutual funds. i can change them if i do not like how companies are doing, i chose to do it myself, others leave it up to advisers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Hawkin said:

If the majority of people quit using tobacco and cancer was greatly reduced, those scientist would be out of work.

Even governments won't ban tobacco because they get billions off the taxes. It's all about money.

 

 

Let's not forget the money Drug Companies make from the Drugs used in Chemo therapy, all pretty shady.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, questionmark said:

To the contrary of cigarettes there actually is healthy processed food. But that is less the point here. Imagine the problem any of the above scientists would have in revealing the actual smoking gun that could ruin big tobacco, while at the same time being aware that it would be the end of most of their pension.

Conflict of interest is a valid point but the chance of some "smoking gun" in the data that could make smokers more liable to quit en mass is about like a Trump supporter becoming outraged at his rhetoric.  Those who smoke do so because they are addicted.  Getting the scourge under control will only be done through harsh education techniques being pounded in the media and public school systems.  I saw how effective it was in Mississippi when they won their big tobacco lawsuit.  My daughter thought smoking a cigar was on par with being a heroin addict that abused puppies.

5 hours ago, Hawkin said:

If the majority of people quit using tobacco and cancer was greatly reduced, those scientist would be out of work.

Even governments won't ban tobacco because they get billions off the taxes. It's all about money.

 

Yep.  I think many US 401K's would probably collapse and I'm sure that the US government would never just accept the loss of tax revenue if tobacco were outlawed.  My mom died from smoking at 65.  My sister had a part of a lung removed 5 years out from quitting but thank God she's an 8 year survivor.  EVEN saying that I would have no problem if the Government insurances of medicare and medicaid refused to pay for long term treatment of directly related cancers caused by smoking and dipping.  The product is legal.  We all benefit from it's tax base and if a person chooses to use it while knowing it's potential consequences then I say help them if there is still time to try to save them from cardiovascular disease and they can stop smoking for good. If they are a person who simply cannot or will not quit then I would only offer palliative treatment when they receive their diagnosis.  No extraordinary measures to sustain life.  I'd do the same for chronic alcoholics (that's me) and anyone considered morbidly obese for a decade or more.  With the wave of aging in this country and the UK there really isn't going to be another choice soon anyway.  Passing such harsh measures now might save some lives in the long term.  Party's over and the time to pay up is here.  Not tomorrow anymore, today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
13 hours ago, freetoroam said:

Each of those paragraphs leaves a very sour taste in my mouth...and its not the tobacco.

Someone from the cancer  group knew where the money was being invested.

If the tobacco industry was declining and IF they had gone out of business and IF cancer cases had decreased, then how would the cancer researches be in a position to afford to earn enough to invest $235 million  in one year? 

Smoking is one cause of cancer, so what to do? invest in a tobacco company while researching a cure for er....what? other cancers not caused by smoking....seems cancer research need the smokers to keep on smoking. And when something you do not want around is declining, the last thing you do is make sure it does not go out of business.....unless it is more beneficial to do otherwise. (as stated in the above link)

i'm sorry, i overlooked this part before, now i see what you mean.  i do agree, the cancer industry needs customers, also agree if cancer cause\cure found, not only the scientists will be out of jobs, but entire cancer treating industry. i've heard  on tv more people make a living in that industry than dying from cancer.. it pays to look for cure, but not to find it.  that was never a secret. best place to hide, is out in the open.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldnt be surprised if they did have no idea where it was invested- I have a pension, all dealt with by a pension company. Beyond making a decision as to what proportion I wanted invested in high risk high yield investments and how much in low yield low risk investments I haven't the faintest idea where any of the actual money if it even exists in any tangible form could possibly be. I suppose I could ring up the pension company and ask them and presumably they'd know, at least what organisations it was invested in but as far as I'm concerned it doesnt really matter and is a bit more effort than I can be bothered going to. I wouldn't be surprised if some was invested in things I wouldn't be too keen on bein involved with, but equally some will be saving the world in some small way.  It all balances out. 

The scientists trying to cure the mess that tobacco causes should have no qualms in benefiting from the baccy when they retire. Lives saved and pensions paid, what? Win win I think they call that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, and then said:

Conflict of interest is a valid point but the chance of some "smoking gun" in the data that could make smokers more liable to quit en mass is about like a Trump supporter becoming outraged at his rhetoric.  Those who smoke do so because they are addicted.  Getting the scourge under control will only be done through harsh education techniques being pounded in the media and public school systems.  I saw how effective it was in Mississippi when they won their big tobacco lawsuit.  My daughter thought smoking a cigar was on par with being a heroin addict that abused puppies.

I was thinking a little more around the corner, like governments getting consequent and put a lid on it, just like they do with any other proven dangerous chemicals... but I guess that would take a consequent government.... most are not.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Torchwood said:

I wouldnt be surprised if they did have no idea where it was invested- I have a pension, all dealt with by a pension company. Beyond making a decision as to what proportion I wanted invested in high risk high yield investments and how much in low yield low risk investments I haven't the faintest idea where any of the actual money if it even exists in any tangible form could possibly be. I suppose I could ring up the pension company and ask them and presumably they'd know, at least what organisations it was invested in but as far as I'm concerned it doesnt really matter and is a bit more effort than I can be bothered going to. I wouldn't be surprised if some was invested in things I wouldn't be too keen on bein involved with, but equally some will be saving the world in some small way.  It all balances out. 

The scientists trying to cure the mess that tobacco causes should have no qualms in benefiting from the baccy when they retire. Lives saved and pensions paid, what? Win win I think they call that.

But we are talking about a multi million pound company with a big statement, not one individual. This company who are getting millions each year from donations by people hoping their work will make a difference to people lives.. 

IT IS the cancer research responsibility to know exactly where the money is being invested, this big company know very well how the system works and they should want to know where the money is being invested............incase their staff want to know, incase all those who have donated what to know and incase it is being invested in something completely against their ethics...like a bloody tobacco company.

 

 

 

DAMN YOU CANCER RESEARCH! You have stabbed in the back all those hoping your work will save lives. 

sorry, do not know what happened there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt the average person knew where the money was being invested. They're clearly upset to find it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I doubt the average person knew where the money was being invested. They're clearly upset to find it out.

I agree.

It is not the average worker who was arranging with the pension company, and you would trust the people from CRUK who did the "research" of which pension company to invest their workers pensions with, .......................would do a better job, considering research is their field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.