December 7, 2017

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Statement regarding litigation filed by Dr. Eunice Neeley

As reported in Buzzfeed and elsewhere, Dr. Eunice Neeley has filed a lawsuit against me alleging sexual harassment and discriminatory behavior. 
I have read the Buzzfeed article and deny every claim reported to be included in this lawsuit. 
These allegations were made formally to the University of California in March 2017 and the University has been conducting an extensive investigation that has not yet been completed.  I have been cooperating in every way with the investigation, including sitting for several interviews, each several hours long, as well as providing extensive written records.  These records provide specific contemporaneous documentation that demonstrates that the related allegations, as reported by Buzfeed, are not supported by the documentary record.
I have also heard that another woman who has been collaborating with Dr. Neeley will be filing a lawsuit in the near future.  She also filed a complaint with the University which is being investigated by the same and other offices.   Based on the complaint filed last March I deny the claims made at that time.
Under University of California policy I am not supposed to discuss this investigation until it has been concluded and I have and will continue to respect that policy.
I want to thank former students and colleagues around the world for your kind words.
This is the only statement that I am making on this matter.
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
Professor of Medicine
Truth Initiative Distinguished Professor in Tobacco Control
Director, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
University of California, San Francisco
December 7, 2017
This posting reflects my personal views and should not be construed as an official statement by the University.  Here is the University of California’s official statement on this case: “UCSF takes any allegations of a hostile work environment seriously. An internal investigation is being conducted under applicable UC policies. We cannot comment on pending litigation or active investigations, however, it is important that all parties’ rights be respected per the terms of UC policies.”



If there is a silver lining in this process it is all the supportive emails and phone calls people -- mostly women I have worked with over the years -- have sent me in response to my statement on the Neeley allegations.

Thank you again.


Seems as though this is a pattern for this agitater. It is SHE who creates the hostile work environment. You should check and see just how many lives and careers she has tried to destroy already during her short time at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, Ga since she did this to Stanton Glantz. If you see how she methodically tries to destroy the lives and careers of good, hardworking, honest and upstanding people, you'll see that her motives aren't pure and honest at all; but, possibly she's exactly what she's accusing those she's filed complaints of being.
Or worse. Much, much worse.
Please check and see what she is doing at Emory at this very moment. There are quite a number of good people in Staton Glantz's exact postion because of her lies, and this information could exonerate him - and them.


Why I released this comment now.

This comment was submitted to the Tobacco Center blog on July 15, 2018.  I am releasing it now because we have now been able to independently confirm that Dr. Neely has submitted more than one sexual harassment complaint against people at Emory.


The Buzzfeed article reported that I “stole credit for her work.”  As explained in detail in a June  21, 2017 letter to the journal from the UCSF Associate Vice Chancellor and Research Integrity Officer, Chairman of the Department of Medicine, and Director of the Cardiovascular Research Institute, “the reason that Dr. Glantz did not include Dr. Neeley as an author when he initially submitted the manuscript on May 26, 2017 was that, despite repeated requests, Dr. Neeley had refused to grant Dr. Glantz permission to include her as an author on the paper.”    The full letter is available here.  

Note:  The journal to which the paper was originally submitted, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention,” sent the paper out to review.  While the reviews saw the science as sound, the journal rejected the paper on priority as not being of sufficient interest to their specific audience.  This is not unusual for high impact journals; the paper is now under review at another journal


September 2018 update

Disposition of the TES paper

On May 26, 2017, after Dr. Glantz submitted the TES paper to the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention (without Dr. Neeley listed as an author), Dr. Neeley submitted her version of the TES paper to the same journal, omitting one of the other postdoctoral fellows who had worked on the TES paper from the author list. She did this without Dr. Glantz’ knowledge or permission.  Dr. Glantz discovered this second submission when the journal routinely notified him that a paper had been submitted listing him as a coauthor.  The journal rejected both TES papers due to the authorship dispute and informed Dr. Glantz that it would be willing to further consider the TES paper after UCSF resolved the authorship question. 

On June 3, again without knowledge of Dr. Glantz or the other listed coauthor, Dr. Neeley submitted her version of the TES paper to another journal, Tobacco Control.  Dr. Glantz learned of this submission to Tobacco Control when the journal sent Dr. Glantz a routine email notification that he had been listed as an author on the TES paper.   

On June 14, 2017, UCSF wrote Dr. Neeley advising her as follows: “Where you are neither the PI nor the corresponding author, you do not have authority to submit the TES manuscript for publication, nor do you have the authority to designate who is and is not an author of the manuscript. This correspondence is notice to you that you are to cease submitting this manuscript to any journal or any other venue for publication.”

On June 21, 2017, UCSF wrote Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention and Tobacco Control  informing the journals that

We support Dr. Glantz executing his role and responsibilities as principal investigator and corresponding author.  Consistent with that, we concur that it is his role and responsibility to make decisions as to who is submitted as an author on the TES manuscript as well as to the final content of the manuscript.  Where a contributor refuses to approve the manuscript, the principal investigator and corresponding author has sole decision-making responsibility to submit the paper without that contributor as author or under acknowledgements, as both those acts require the individual’s approval.   The University supports Dr. Glantz’ decision to submit the paper as he has approved it for submission.

Dr. Glantz subsequently submitted the TES paper for publication to Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, which, as noted above, was rejected on priority after peer review.

Dr. Glantz then submitted the TES paper to Tobacco Control, which also rejected the TES paper.  While one of the reviewers saw value in the TES paper, the other reviewers provided pages of detailed criticisms.  After considering these criticisms, Dr. Glantz decided to stop pursuing publication of the TES paper.

The Neeley Lawsuit has been Settled and the Complaint Dismissed with Prejudice

In September, 2018, the Regents of the University of California and I executed a settlement agreement resolving Dr. Neeley’s lawsuit against the Regents and me personally.  You can read the settlement agreement here.

As stated in the settlement agreement, neither the Regents nor I admit liability regarding any of Dr. Neeley’s allegations.  The decision to settle this case was made by the Regents, with my concurrence, that settling the case was preferable to the continuing costs of years of litigation. The nuisance value amount of the settlement to Dr. Neeley is intended purely to avoid ongoing litigation fees and costs. 

As part of this settlement, I transferred ownership of this TES manuscript to Dr. Neeley.  My reason for doing so is that, as noted above, I had already decided to abandon efforts to publish the TES manuscript due to the issues raised by Tobacco Control’s peer reviewers.

After the settlement agreement was executed, I, on my own initiative, provided the reviews to Dr. Neeley to assist her in any future efforts she may make to publish the TES paper. 

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.