Context and Key Players
In 2021, Geneva’s HEPIA (the Geneva-based higher education institution focused on landscape, engineering and architecture) was reportedly involved in a confidential collaboration with the American tobacco giant Philip Morris. According to RTS’s Pôle Enquête, discussions centered on tests of effectiveness within agronomic research, but the precise nature of the talks remains unclear. Philip Morris has stated to RTS that the collaboration did not progress beyond a pre-evaluation stage, while HEPIA has not commented publicly, citing a binding confidentiality agreement with the multinational.
The affair has thrust questions about transparency and scientific integrity into the public arena, as watchdogs and sections of civil society press for access to contractual details and the terms that governed any potential collaboration.
The Case Before the Courts and What It Reveals
The anti-tobacco group OxySuisse, which monitors tobacco industry influence in Switzerland, sought full access to the contract between HEPIA and Philip Morris. Pascal Diethelm, president of OxySuisse, argued that “one of the principles of academic science is transparency,” enabling verification that research integrity rules are respected. The Geneva Court’s Administrative Chamber sided with OxySuisse, granting access to the contract in the wake of the ruling.
HEPIA subsequently provided RTS with the agreement, but the document does not shed light on the discussions that transpired between the two partners; rather, it appears to restrict further communication on the matter. This pattern—contracts that limit disclosure in sensitive collaborations—reflects a broader, though contentious, practice in applied research where confidentiality agreements are used to protect proprietary methods or commercial interests.
Industry Response and Ethical Debates
Philip Morris has defended its approach, framing collaborations as part of a broader research program aimed at developing products that could be less harmful for current adult smokers. “We invite those who critique risk-reduction efforts to engage with the data scientifically and constructively,” a company spokesperson told RTS. The company’s stance emphasizes a commitment to evidence-based debate rather than cessation of all inquiry into potential reduced-risk products.
Meanwhile, the HES-SO (the umbrella for Western Switzerland’s higher education institutions) is reviewing this episode within a formal framework. The rectorate’s spokesperson notes that all HES romandes institutions should adhere to a Code of Scientific Integrity based on four principles: reliability, honesty, respect, and responsibility. These guidelines aim to safeguard public health and environmental protection while supporting robust research partnerships.
Yet opponents of industry ties contend that confidentiality, secrecy, and commercial sensitivities undermine trust in scientific inquiry. Pascal Diethelm argues that authentic ethical compliance is improbable under partnerships bound by non-disclosure, particularly given the risk of promoting products with contested health profiles and industry secrecy cultures. He calls for stronger safeguards to ensure that research serves public interest rather than corporate advantage.
National Context and Next Steps
The RTS investigation reveals that several HES romandes parties have engaged with tobacco and nicotine industry actors, prompting the HES-SO directorate to initiate a legal-and-ethical review intended to clarify the rules and develop shared guidelines. The goal is to prevent harm to the environment or public health while preserving the potential benefits of applied research in fields like agronomy and architecture, where practical innovations can emerge from cross-sector collaboration.
Experts warn that the consequences of opaque partnerships extend beyond a single contract. If transparency falters, so too can trust in academic findings meant to guide policy, industry standards, and health recommendations. The ongoing inquiry and subsequent guidelines will likely shape how Swiss higher education negotiates industry collaborations in the future, balancing scientific curiosity with principled governance.
What It Means for Research Integrity
The core tension centers on whether confidential agreements can coexist with rigorous standards of integrity, accountability, and public accountability. As Swiss universities navigate these complex partnerships, there is growing demand for explicit policies detailing disclosure obligations, risk analyses, environmental safeguards, and clear boundaries between research aims and commercial interests.
Global Lessons
Across Europe and beyond, similar debates unfold whenever industry players participate in academic research. The Geneva case adds to a broader conversation about how institutions manage potential conflicts of interest while pursuing scientific advances. The outcome of the HES-SO review—alongside ongoing court access decisions—will signal how Swiss higher education can maintain rigorous ethics without stifling beneficial applied research.
