Leiden University researchers have uncovered a striking gap in Dutch academic governance: despite decades of documented ties between universities and the tobacco industry, explicit policies to address such collaborations remain largely absent. The finding, published in a new study in PLOS Climate by researchers from Leiden University and Solid Sustainability Research, raises uncomfortable questions about how institutions approach relationships with industries that damage public health.
The researchers initially expected universities to be leading the charge against tobacco industry influence. After all, academic research first revealed tobacco's harmful effects—institutions should be the vanguard of health protection. Instead, what they discovered was the opposite: Dutch universities appear to follow public opinion rather than shape it. Despite widespread agreement that tobacco collaborations are "inappropriate," most universities lack the concrete policies needed to act on that conviction.
What makes this finding particularly striking is its broader implication. The researchers deliberately designed their study to draw lessons about tobacco policies that could illuminate an even larger problem: the persistence of university ties to the fossil fuel industry. Like tobacco, the World Health Organization has identified fossil fuels as a major driver of non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes. Yet many universities continue justifying collaborations with energy companies, particularly when partnerships are framed as supporting the energy transition or climate solutions.
The mechanism of influence, the researchers found, is remarkably similar across both industries. Companies in the tobacco and fossil fuel sectors use academic partnerships strategically—to delay policy action, create doubt about their impact, and gain legitimacy through association with prestigious institutions. They steer scientific research toward technological "solutions" that protect their business models, such as e-cigarettes and blue hydrogen. Both industries also target young people directly, for instance through donations to student associations.
Many researchers remain largely unaware of these tactics. The academics conducting this work found that numerous scientists simply don't recognize how their institutional partnerships can be weaponized by industries with vested interests in blocking regulation. This knowledge gap leaves universities vulnerable to being used as tools for influence rather than as independent voices for health and sustainability.
The researchers acknowledge that phasing out fossil fuels presents complexity that tobacco control does not. Unlike cigarettes, which serve no essential function, fossil fuels remain entangled with nearly every part of modern economies—with the exception of luxury emissions like holiday air travel or SUV use. This economic reality doesn't, however, justify inaction. Instead, the researchers argue that universities, research funders, scientific journals, and health professionals should scrutinize their ties to both sectors with equal rigor, given the stakes for public health and the environment.
The timing is favorable for change. Dutch universities are already tightening policies on external partnerships due to pressure from students, staff, and the public. VU Amsterdam's decision to sever ties with the fossil fuel industry was followed by a notable shift: public support for the policy grew after implementation rather than before it. This pattern—evident in smoking bans and other health regulations—suggests that universities need not wait for consensus to act. Leadership often creates its own support.
The message from this research is simple: universities have both the opportunity and responsibility to take the initiative. By standardizing policies across harmful industries, they can strengthen academic integrity, reduce conflicts of interest, and align their research and partnerships with genuine public health and sustainability goals. The question is not whether it's possible. It's whether institutions will choose to lead.