Tobacco Documents Online

TO: FRO,Xh RE: D.~.TE : Files Dz. Huber Oe~l Tosteson and the tobacco industry ~y 24. 197g j £;C'~ On Thursday morning, ~y 24, 1979, I met at my request with Dean Daniel Tosteson of HarvaTd Hedical School to discuss the Tobacco and Health Research Program. I introduced mysel£ to Dr. Tosteson, and told him that I had cone by. tO discuss a ntt~be~ of ~atteT$~ past 8rid present~ co~cer~ing OUr research program supported bY the tobacco industTy at Ha~vard UaiwrsftT. De&n Tosteson said, *tRight~ I 80 ~now about it and I can t~aglne that you ~$t be rat~e~ dtstTessed at the pz~sent state of thi.ngs and I am anxious to hear your perspective." _~ • ] said to Dean Tostesoa,¸ I*~e have spent a long and £~ust~atin~ yea~ end a h~1£ trying unsuccessfully to £ind a solutinn to the needs o£ this p~ogr~. Taking this long to find ~nswers tends to 6rain onels ~ne~ies and c~eative p~o~ ductivity." . I further indicated that a d~cision now had been reached w~eroby the industry ~ould not go ~orwa~ with the ~oposal that Be~n Henry Heado~ had ~ade to the. I £urther said that Dean H~adow, the tobacco industry li~£son [Le~ Stanford), and T had agreed to a phase-out plan that would ,d~imiz~ the p¢o~essional harm to a sta£f who had wor~ed in this pzogram ~or now almost se~en years. ~hat phase-out plan has been p~esented to the industry fo~ thei~ consideration, and their dec~sionis still pending. I sa~d to Dean Tost~son, "I a~ troubled, as ] told Henry He~ow0 that ~e c&~e close to develo~.ng a solution fo~ co~tnulng t~e prog~a~ and t~n ~&lled.I~ I £urthe~ s~ld to hi~ that tnmyJudge~en¢ the ultimate negative.decision£or ~ding o£ t~e ~o~rEm w&s i~luenced, in pa~tj bT so~e unresolvable di£ferences ~n personalities between the industry and Un~ve~sit~ ~epresent~iv~s, ~ wh~t I considered to ~e less th~n o~tinal communication between the Unlvevsit~and the tndustry " D~an Tost~son interrupted ~ and s~id~ "What do you ~ean? ~at do you ~eau about personalities? Is it a matte~ of personalities between Henry aud...?'l I rosponded that ~n many but not all ways ~ was pleased in w~t H~nry Neadow had don~ £or us~ as T had already co~unicated to our Advisory Co~ittee, and that ~ithout D~an ~eado~ts~help we ~uld not have bad the op~on£or co~ing as fa~ as ~e ~ad in trying to dovelop'~ solution. ~owever~ T further stated that~ uufort~tely~ that in spite of Dean Headow at ti~es working ver~ hard to try to £ind a solu=inn~ a number o~ ~ents occurred that under~ined his cre- dibilitT~ and that once that had occurred t~e odds ~re long againstus. I sald that as industry ~epresentatives £rom di£~erent companies c~e to Boston to review the ~oposa]~ and met ~ith Sophie Koch-I/eser~ ~epresentatives of the ~unt ~bu~n Hospital, the head of Harvard's designated constructinn firm, and others, there ~ere co~u~ications that were c~itlcal o~ Henry Heado~s hanS!in~

H~-7 24, 1979 Page 2 o£ these matters. I indicated to De&n Tosteson that perhaps Dean ~Icado~" had ~'not dons enough early enough" after the industryts initial ~isit to 9ostou a year and s half ago (February of 1978), ~nd that some of the components o£ Dean ~leadol~'s proposal perhaps should never have been suppo~te~. D~an Tosteson interrupted me, and asked, "~ere there criticisms of Henry from within our systemT" I Tesponded~ "¥es~ there were criticisms from within the system,t' I fuTther e.xplained that, based on a bad p&st history, the industry wanted to $h&re in any decision5 we made about ~aciliti~. I said that over the past seven years or ~ore chey had provided us with over $5 million in suppoTt, and they shared with us the frustration o£ the investigators in the need to develop &dequate £acllitles lot the program. ~ further said that the industry h~d agreed in their initi&l ~eeting with Dean ~adow to ~ake a co~itment to go £orwa~ in pr~cipleo within speci£ie~ guidellnes. Before implementi.u~ any further supportj however, rep~esent~ive$ of several compaute$ wanted to m~et w~th't~e¸ adm~utstTation end the Trustees o~ the - ~lount Auburn t~os~it~l, wtt~ the architect involved in the development o£ new facilities for the ~o~ra~ 'with Ha~ardls contractor who would he performing the Tenovations, and other~embers o£ the Harvard administration. I went on to say that in the course of these ~i'~t$~ particularly wlch the a~chitect and~ in one instauce'with'the construction firm~ industry representatives were repeatedly told that the ~lans fur purchase or lease of an old~ off-c~mpus ~'arehous~ and its ~enovatlon did not represen~ a ~oo~ investment~ and the renovation of th~ Clark Buildin~ at th~ ~ouat Auburn Hospital wa$~ at best, only ~ ~arg~a11F supportable Tecomendatlon. Dean Tostesonasked, "They were told this by whom?" I ~esponded, "By the architect~ repeatedly end by the head of the construction firm." I said that ~ had'supported ~h~ ~oposal, with reser- vations, because ~t w~s:the only choice ~arvard (0ean Ne~do~ had ~u~t~ally made ~vsilable to u~ ~or consideration. Z ~u~ther indicated, that, to some extent, the~e were some criti~ism~ of Dean ~eadow¸raised by both the adm~nistratlon of the ~uflt Auburn Hospltal, and ~he 'iuvestigatlve staff. ~ went on to s~y that these e~ents, as well as the recurrently chaug~ng proposals submitted to the industry representat~ves~by Deau ~eadow, helped to unde~mine Henry ~e~ow,s credibility ~ich all parties ~n~olved. Dean Tosteson said, "Good Go~! Do you mean that the people that Henry Meado~ got to~bther to implement his proposal...ah, wh Sophie...Sophle told the~ it was a had idea?~' I responded that, yes~ Sophie had told them that the initial proposal ~as a "bad i~e~' a~ter Hen~ Neado~ had proposed this ~s the "best solution" to industry representatives. Dean Tosteson said~ "~ell~ that ~ill do itS" ! responded that. "For s group of industry people ~ho are gaod businessmen, this was not a ~ood ~ay to do business.It I ~esponded that at the level of the tobacco industry representation wlth whom we ~ere dealin~ indiYiduals

~b)' 24, 1979 Paso 3 involved were used to making, as it had been expressed to us by their liaison, "yes or no" decisions, and did not usual]y desire to get involved to the degree they had on our proposal. I explained that their desire'to do so at the time was based, in great part, on the failure of Harvard in the past to provide adequate facillties for our program. I explained to Dean Tosteson that the Charlesgate-Hotmt Auburn option apparently was the best possibility that Henry Headow could come up with in the context o£ the initial guidelines provided to us by the industry. When this approach failed, I reviewedthe events by which the industry had then been presented with a series of proposals for going forward on the gouehborOugh campus. Although there were some favorable aspects to the Southboroug~ consideration, I indicated that one of the prlmaryconcerns expressed by the industry was, "Why did we have to wait for 15 months for this proposal?" I indicated to Dean Tosteson that the long delay in identifying the South- borough option represented an inefficient expenditure of the grantors f~mds and our own research efforts while We were restr£ctedto grossly inadequate facilities, Had the Southb0r0ugb option been identified iS months earlier, I said, its cost would have been conslderably less, and we would have been able to save a year and a half of'Inefficient expenditures of the grantors. funds. "That," I said,"in my Judgement, is part of the 'bad history' of administrative management at Hazard." r indicated that the proposal that finally evolved on the Southborough campus was an excellent one, except perhaps for its distant location. ~ furtber.lndicated that some repre- sentatives from the industry also thought the Southborough option was an excellent solution. I summarized tbis matter by.stating, "It is ~dst so terriblyunfortunate that it took usa year and a half to identify and evolve to this optlon," Dean Tosteson said, "You are saylng, you think, lthat the psychology of it is that bad this been pTesented Initially to the industr~ it'might have gone forward? That is, they would put the money up front ~nd develop adequate facilities fez you?" I responded that throughout our discussions any one of a number of different ways might have been favorablT consldered. "Harvard bad a responsibillty all along,'! I said, "to develop facilities for us and since 1972 that res- ponsibility has neverbeen met, despite Our many requests." Primarily, however, I stated that, because of the past history, at this time the industry was looking for "a shared respenstbillty hy Harvard for this prugr~." I said, "In other wor~s, they wanted a responsible commitment from Harvard that would indicate a moz~ palatable Consideration for continuation." I ~eviewed the suggestion to amortize the building over a longerlife=span than a fivo:~eaz grant extension, and in so doing'have Harvard share the risk of facilities d~velopment. I said to Dean Tosteson that on their last visit to Boston, .at a time when several representatives of the industry made adjustments and sacrifices in their schedule to come here to help us find a solution, they specifically asked to meet Dean Tosteson in person. Specifically, I said, "They asked on theirlast visit here to meet you and came here with the understanding

~Eay 24~ 1979 Pago 4 that they ~'ere going to meet you." I said that~ "I had been assured by Dean ~leadow that you ~'ould be ava£1chle. They wanted the oppo~tunity to to~unicate to you their concerns Telatlve to th£s program, and to receive assurances tha~ the administration of Harvard ~dical School is behind our research efforts.'~ I said that ~'hen it was announced that Dean¸ Tosteson ~'ould not meet ~ith them, the)" requested a t£~e for a private caucus~ following wh£ch the decision was co,~unicated that they would not go forward under these conditions. Dean Tosteson said, "Oh my DedP' There was a long period of $£1ence~ ~:he~e Dean Tosteson lo~e~ed his head and $hoo~ it fro~ side to side and kept sayingj "A~, ahp ah, Io aho ah...you mean to say you have the impression that 1 refused to meet with them?" responded thatm "Yes, i~ ~'~s my l~pression or ~nderstandin~ from Dean ~eadowls office~ that you had been informed o~ the meeting and had ejected not to meet with them." I said that it eas further co~unicated to us~ and ~hat it ~as no~ out im~ressi0n, that~ mlYou do not want the tobacco industry on the F~rvard ~edical School campus." Dean Tosteson interrupted me and said, I~Th0se ate very difforent statements, and uh, uh~ uh.. °1, D~an Tosteson d~d not ~inish his sent~llce and I said~ mtD~an Tosteson~ the~ wanted very ~uch to meet with ~ou¸ and cam~ to ~oston w~th that expectation. ! do ~ot know what they would have said to you~ but r think it might have ~ede a di~£erence had you taken the ti~ to ~eet w~th th~mj and it was not courteous £or you:notto do so. After a11~ they a~e bus~ executlyes who ~ade time in their schedules¸ to Co~.~ to Harvard to t~" ~o solve this problem,n r said that, "l~en'it was announced to th~ tha~ you would not be oble to see th~ even fur ~ive ~int~es to sa~ ~hello~I the~e was a percept£ve change in thei~ mood¸that was evident to a11 of us." Sub~,equent discussions that occu~red~ I co~un~cated~ basicall~ ended the options fo~ £urther consideration under the current proposals. I further said that on several occasions ~t had been co~un~catnd to us by ~iffe~ent Tepresentatives o~ the industry since that time that, "The industry w~11 come ~ack tomor~owj whenever t~mo~row ~ight be~ i~ they ~ere appro~rfatel~ inv£ted.', r said thBtp "They would l£ke to sit ¸down wft~ Dean Tosteson in person and discuss these ~atters a~ ~reate~ length.~' Dean Tosteson $aid~ mrReall~'? Is that a fact~ is that really ~ ~act?I' I resp~nded~ tlYes, that £$ correct, at least as several of t~em have com~dicated directly to me.'~ ~ forther co~un~cat~d that Dean Heedow ~ad told Dr. First and me that t~ey could not send the£r General Counsel ~epresentatives to meet the Dean of Harvard ~edical School~ and that the Dean o~ Ha~vard ~ed£cal School only would co~mun£cated with the Ch£ef Executives of each company. I said that I did not ~ree w£th that pos~£on. I said to Dean Tosteso~ tha~ l~r ~ not really here to ~evi~w each Of these matters in great deta£1,¸ nor do ~ want to ~eview all of the past m£stakes.I' I said ~hat I was here for primar£1~ other reasons,

~RV 24, ig79 • Page S I said to Dean Tosteson that at this point in time I had accepted the .probability that our program ~'ould not be able to go forward at Harvard University, and although that was painfully disappointing to me I had been able to Tesol,,e my pexsonal unhappiness and acute disappointment, for the time being. I communicated it was ny hope that I could undertake tobaeco-Telated research, in part with iodustry support, else~:here. I said, howeverj that if there was aRy posslbility of contlnu£ng the pro~rmu at Harvard that, "I do not want to leave any stone unturned in trying to find a positive resolution here...• I said that, "If there is any chance of our solving these problems at Harvard, I want to £~plore every possible consideration." I said to Dean Tosteson, "~bst of all, this Is an important University in this country and the tobacco industry is an impoztant industry in this country." I said, '~There are nov some had feelings in that industry toward~ Harvard that I think could be greatly reduced with better communication." I further said, "l~hether this program goes forward, here or elsewhere, or whether indeed it does end in total, I would like to see misunderstandings. between this University and the tobacco industry reduced to a minimum,t' I further said that I would llke to see communications '~aximlzed" between the Dean of Harvard Eedical School and r~presentatives of the tobacco industry. I said that after this program ends, Harvard will continue to b~ an important university and the tobacco industry will continue to be an important industry that has as one of its major concerns the potential health effects of its product. • r said that somebody has to work on these• problems, and has to solve them. I said that I hoped there could be additional and bette~ communlcation, totally independent of any considerations of the existing program, to better provide a framework for considerations of this nature in the futuTe by Harvard and by the industry~ whether together oz in their own separate directions. Dean Tosteson.sald, "Okay. I guess that~ uh, uh.. j' I then said to Dean Tosteson, who did not finish his sentence, that I w~ted to hear first hand a clarification £ro~ him on the alleged co~ent that the tobacco industry was ~otwelcome on the Harvard Medical School campus. ~ said to penn Tosteson that it was my conviction that the tobacco industry deserved an "outlet" by which to conduct good Tesearch programs and that they did have that kind of a relationship .at other traiversities. I said that thei~ programs at other schools worked much better than their progral d~d at Harvard University, and that we all deserved to understand and learn the reasons ~,hy this ~s the case. I said to Dean Tosteson, "I ~'ould like to know, and I would llke the industry to k~ow, as well as the University administration to know, what can be learned fro~ our mistaknsj why it did not work well here, and what can be done in the future to improve the potential success.of a program of this nature." Dean Tosteson responded, "Okay. I, uh, uh, uh, accept, uh, uh, those thoughts and remarks. I am deeply concerned about the relationship between the Harvard Hedical School and the corporate sector and the general relationship between Harvard University and the corporate sector. I believd that they will flourish or decay together. I do not think that the private universities,

~lay 24, 1979 Page 6 including Harvard, and elsewhere in the United States, can survive in the future on iadividual contributions from the various elements o£ the corporate sector, me only source of private dollars of any magnitude is the co.orate sector. ~ley are not now contzibuting anything like they could if there were greater tax Teller for them for doin£ so. I don't think they're going to improve their contributions. But I think the~e is some room for manetr~r£ng, and escalatlon of their donations, in possible ~oint adventures like the program you have developed." I agreed with Dean Tostes0n that corporate contributions of significant n, agnitude would probably not lncresse %o private tmivezsittes, to any significant degree, and that there were i~po~t~nt problems that could be solved by ~oint co~£t~ents of di£fersat industries with the academic community, if "workable" models of mutual benefit could bb establiabed. Dean Tosteson sa~d~ ,,There are i~portant problems thatneed to be solved, and in some sense we shou2d he able to s~lve these together. I thiak we abould take that kind of app~oaab. I think the Uni~ersitT has to recognize that there is a need to identify and define problems¸ that are of importanc~ to the ¢oz'poTate sector and that we need to ~ecogn~ze~ therefore that these problems are important to the University~ as well." I ~esponded to Dean Tosteson that there are many different industries that have important potential health problems associated with their products that can he resolved'best ~hrough research performed on • medical ~chool campus. I sa~d that ~ did not thin~ that many of these industries could solve these ~roble~s internalIy, and that the tobacco industry especially needed outside help through Un~ersit~ contribut~ons to meet these needs. I said, further, ¸that I thought the ~obacco ~ndustrywould continue to turn ~n dtf£e~entways to different universities, and tha~ we need good ~odels ~y which universities could undertake reseaT~ progr~J~s¸ of ~nteTest not only to the tobacco industry/hut to 6tber ~ndustr~es as Wb11. Dean Tosteson said, "I agree. Now~ specifically, I think the manner in which you have ~ddressed me deserves a very candid com~unication on my personal position about your project. The ma~or p~oblem is not your xesearch program, but the tobacco industry. There is no question, that from the point of view of health, the tobacco industry should best cease to exist as an industry. I" th~nk to encourage through ~dvertising persons ~o smoke, on which they spend ¸vast sums of money, is a subtXe form of murder. So, ~hen your, uh, u~, I think, uh, Uh.o.tO permit the i~dustry tO continue to exist, and to permit them to advertise their product, is equivalent to perm£t£ng them°.." I responded to Dean Tosteson that I understood what he was saying, and could even appreciate the nature of some of his remarks~ but that I did not in gnfieral agree with his philosophy. "To the best of my knowledge " I said~ "tobacCo cigarettes are still :leg1 merchandise in this country, and under ~he f~ee enterprise system I do believe they have a ~ight to sell the£~ products by any legal meansP'

IL ~y 24~ 1979 Page 7 Dezn Tvsteson said, T'C~tego~ically~ considering a dl£ferent relationship. betweo~j lefts sa)', not ~he tobacco indust~T but the auto industry or the energy industry or nuclwr power or wha~eveT, ~heTe a~e RI1 so~ts of ~dusCTiai h~ard$ that a~e ~e¢~$$a~y to o~r li~ing on t~i~ planet° The automobile industry, ~o~ example, is a~ ex~p]e on which you could m~ke a case, ] 5~pose, that drivin~ is a luxurious fa~ t~t ~e u~e a~omobile~ as much as we do~ and that ~he~e i$ ~o~e d~ger o~ ~isk lnvol~ed, You c&nnot make any Such case for the ~$k that the %ob~¢co ~ndust~y p~esvnt~ us~ and ~o On and 5o ~o~h. and you ~ake my poin~ on thfnk~ng the~ should be put out o~ th~ ~obacco industry under certain circ~tance~ of thei~ gi~i~g us ap~rop~a~e • ~o~i~s.i~ I said to Bean ~oste~on, "From y~ur co~m~nt$~ then, ~ ~ou~d ~rc~ve that the tobacco Industry reprvsenzs one of the ~ost di£ffcult ~stzies ~oryou personally to resolvv yvt~ own ~on~lict b~tween acceptance and rejection o~ research support." 1 fu~the~ said to Desn Tos~e~o~l t~a~ X ~as I said ~hatj "~ether people ~hould smoke o~ ~ot smoke l~ not one o~ ~ose tycoons, for in this co~ntzy ~ believe ~ha~ is ~ill a ~ree choice,tl I • ~d th~ ~'h~ we be~n o~ program in 1972, ~he industry ~s ~nu~actu~ mppro~ately 60~ b~lllon ¢tga~ette~ per ye~ and that seven years l~er ~e ar~ %old b~ ~hefr ~ep~esentatives that ~hey are ~nu~acturing ove~ 700 billion ct~arett6s • year. I $~id t~at £o~ any indust~ ~at ~prese~ts a ~ub~tanttal growth ~n the ~arkettng o£ their produc~, ~n~ indica~ed to that people in th~$ cov~ry~ ~or one re&son or a~oth~ w~n% ~o ~moke° Dean To$~e$o~ 5~id~ IINo doubt. No doubts about t~at one at all~ ~o I s~id to Dean To~t~son ~h~, I~The~e ~e ~evez~l ~o~ ]~alth co~tTove~$ie$ Sur~o~mdin~ ~be s~okin~ and health issue,II ~ $a~d~ I~Th~e controvw~te$ ca~ be Solved only by good ~esea~h~ a~ ~ seems Tea$onabl~ ~o me that the tobacco l~stry should ~espo~ only on ~he basi~ o£ goo~ ~ese~h.'l I ~a~d that I ~pp~ec~ted that individuals, psrt~cula~ly in h£gh pos~tions of ~dminfstration ~n the gvve~n~n~ and in the ~lth ca~e $~t~$ o~ our country,¸ ~gh~ b~ oppo~e~ 'to ~obacco ~mok~ng~ a~d ~ecause o~ ~eir personal vie~$ might i~ sva~e ~nst~nce~ ~$cou~ag~ ~u~the~ tobac~o-~ela~ed ~ese~ch. said ~h~t this has ce~afnly.beenour experience on ~sn~ di~fer~ o¢c~sions over ~h~e ~as~ several years,, and that rainy ad~lnistr~to~s, t~clud~g Dr. Rabkin o£ the Beth Israel Hospital, have expressed that permiting ~eseaTch o~ to~cco acknowledges that all questions h~ve not been ~nswe~ed snd in thei~oplnion ~h~t is ~rong. I' ssid ~o Deah~Toste~on~ th~, ~he~her ~his regarded him or anyone else~ I ~id ~o~ th~k th~s wa~ a reasonable ~pproach. I said I dfd not think it was helpful ~r ~n ~d~ini~ra~o~ ~o say thst smoking ~'as bad, ~nd then turn his hvad and ws!kBway~r0m problems tha% cvuld be solved o~ly ~th ~ood r~arch ef£orts;¸¸ I sa~ t~a~ t~e tobacco ~nd~s~ryi~ no~ going ou% o~s~nes$, ~nd people continue to wa~t ~o Smoke. I s~ate~j I~The people ~,ll~ desire to smoke, the people ~o manufacture c iga~e~te~, and the people who ~ke l~s.o~he s~oki~g of cigarettes sll detente better ~s~er~ ~h~n ~hey now have avaii~ble, and those answers c~n ¢o~e only ~rom good research.I'

blay 24, 1979 Page 8 I prcclpitated a somewhat emotional response when I said to Dean Tosteson that, "Indeed, I think there may be meTits to smoking." Dean Tosteson looked aghast, and said, "i~hat might those be?~' I said that as our civilized societies have become more complex, the e~'olution of technical advancements available to our population exceeded, in some instances, the ev01utibn of our social and emotional adaptations to those technical advancements. I said that in revle~,'ing the research done in the behavioral sciences, it was clear that our society has adapted to the accelerated pace of llfe, as well as to the enchance availability of technology, by sometimes less than ideal ways. I said that it would oppeaz, on the basis o£ ths use of both illicit drugs and opp~oved tranquilizers, that there were a large number of people in our country who appear to bene£it from the use of pharmacologically active agents as part of theiT adaptation to the stresses of ~edern life, I told Dean Tosteson that, in my judgement, nicotine was one such pharmaco1ngical agent, and as such was probably far less harmful than many other kinds o£ devices and agents that nan e~ploys. "Nicotine," I said,"is in my judgement, one of the safest pha~nacologically beneficial agents man has available, if he can safely get it into his system." Dean Tosteson responded, "I think that is...uh...uh...bullshit] Pure, unadulterated bullshlt.'! Dean Tosteson said that the population of our country should be warned of the health hazards of smoklngj and that all smoking was hazardous. "No one can Possible'beneflt £¢o~ smoking cigaregtes]" he said. I responded to Dean Tosteson that I did not agree with hi~. and that I did not thir~ thls w~s the issue, r related to him that I had once served on a television panel with Dr. Horn, who was then the Director of the National Clearlnghouse on Smoking and Health. ~ said that Dr. Horn had stated that he could stand on the Tooftop of every home In Ame~Ic~ and tell people that tobacco smoking caused cancer and ot~er diseases, and he would not he co~municatlng any~hlng they dld not fully undezstaed or had been told. I said that I£ there are potential health hazards from smoking, the smoking population of our country was "fully aware of them. The issue, £ said, was that people want by their own choice to smoke," and that we need ~o better understand if indeed theTe a~e health Tisks, and if there are who is at risk and what can be "done about it, Dea~ Tosteson responded, "l#e11, you ~ow where I'm coming from. l~e have got, as you undoubtedly know, a program sponsored by Reynolds with Cliff Barger. I am wllllng to let the tobacco industry sponsor research on our cm~pus, but. I would prefer .Chat airport were given for the baslc sciences and not for applied research potentlally of interest to the industry." I acknowledged to Dean Tosteson that I was fully aware of the Cliff Barger program, sponsored by Reynolds, and that many of the other industry- •sponsored prpgrRm else~'here were o£ a basic science nature, rather than applled directly to the s~oking and health controversy. Dean Tosteson went-on to say, "As a matter of principle, ] am not entkusiastic about having an app1£ed tobacco industry program at Harvard.

Page 9 That's one thing. Second, £ don't like their approRch to thls Snterim a~a~gemeat, and I ~ean by that, chelr, ooUh.o,uho•oStOpping pBymentSo ] can understand that they mltht ¸have been upset, and so on, zelative to Harvardl$ mismanagement of the program in the past, bnt I donft llk¢ having the~ holding payments after they have ~ade a deal with us. ~ just think that that is ver~" bad behs~,ior, I do not like to see a ~illlon dollBr i deficit building up on ~y books. I called £n Henry and Mitchell, and sadd~ TDRmn it, I donlt l£k~ chat,' and I don~t like thatl X wish the industry had given ~e the opgortunity tO solve this problem. Whst a previous admdn£stratlon had done shauld not be my responsibility. If a ~ong had been done, they should have given me the oppo~'tunity to correct it°'~ I sald to Dean Tosteson that I understood his foelings, and that I did not like bolng in the position foT a ~ear and a half as the principle Invest£gato~ with funds withheld either, and that £~ rspresentod a ~e~ difficult c~adit£on under which to W~k for all o£ ~s in the pr.ogram, I said ~o Dean Tostes~n~ "T~ey signed an¸ agreem~nt'with ~s~ however~ and Harvard did not hon~ that agreement. It was my job .as the Principle I~veat£gato~ to say that ~acildtles ~e~e ~ot a~equate, and wdth the p~st history of lack of support ~hey h~d no choice other than to withhold paym~nt~o" De~ Toateson said, ~I believe yo~, Ga~7. An~ so, you know, it was th~i~s to solve. TO ths extent that they hsve withheld payments, I have been lukewarm, at b~st, to having anything to do with the baata~ds, l would 1~ke to see y~u~ program p~ese~ved° • ~ h~ve noted that the fac~tty review .committee has very enthusisstically endoTsed the work that¸ you have¸ b~e~ doing. ~ have ~ead so~ of th~se ~nate~ial$~ ~nd ~ think )'ou~ ~e~e&~ch i~ ~xcelient °,i I ~es~nd~d to Dean Tosteson, wYes, Dean Toste$o~ an~ ~hat is the ~eal t~agedy with this situation. ~t is a good p~.ogram and ~e haw done a good Job. ~e could have done a much bette~ job and achieved our objectives I£ we had had adminlstrative support and adequate facilities. The ~eal t~agedy he~ is that a good scientific program £~ going to perish fo~ the wrong ~easons. We were making important headway in provddl.ng information in a~e~s wh~re Others a~e not, and probably will not ever again make con- t~dbutinns of th~s ns~ure°" Dean Tosteson said, "P/ght~ that is co~rect~ TightoIt I said to Dean Tosteson, "I am not su~ anything mo~e can be done at this point." I said that I felt better having corenunicated the$~ ~atte~$ directly to him and t~at, "I did not want to just passlvel7 let ~hls prog~ go into dem~se'wlthout coming i~ and seeing ~y Dean about it directly." t01d Dean Thateson that I ddd not¸agree with his philosophical perspsctlves abon~ tobacco, ~nd that ~ thought¸ his vlew was ~ather naTro~-mlnded for someone of ]%i$ st~tu~eo Dean ~ostoson ~aid, "~ell, G~7, I wo~Id have been very h~ppy if you had not co~e to see ~e° Yo~ h~ve given ~ ~ertainly s diffe~eat picture 0£ it, to so~e extent, that I did not have before, which I will discuss with

~y 24, lg79 Page lO Henry and with Mitchell. Perhaps we can make a~ends to the tobacco Industcy, I mus: say.., uh, uh...a third item. I was not keen R bout this Charlesga~e warebovse deal, It was s horrible, horrible solution to propose. And i chewed Henry out about that on several occasions, and I thought he could probably work this out better. You should never have had to conduct your research progra~ in a place like that." I said to Dean Tosteson, "Well, that's fine, Dean Tosteson, and it is unfortunate that you Were not able to say that a year and a half ago. If that kind of position had been taken initially on the warehouse solution, and appropriate steps taken to remedy the situation, I doubt that any funds would • have ever been withheld, and that ue would not have gotten into any of those really severe problems." I indicated to Dean Tosteson that it was wrong to place the industry in the position o£ supporting a prpgr~m allegedly a~ Harvard when we were undertaking research in what is essentlally a condemned facillty. I said that for them to continue to support research under those conditiong would fully uRde1~ine any credibility'that the px~ogram might have. I said that it would unde~ine our credibility as investigators, and that o£ Harvard University, as well. Dean Tosteson said, "Well, I agree with that, I agree fully. Absolutely, and besides which, as I now get a different perspective, my God...good God,.. what's happened is terzlbleP' I said to Dean Tosteson, "I agree, but that i$ all ~ow past hlstorTi I think, unfortunately, we can not now erase past history, for £t is too late to resolve these matters." I told Dean Tear, sen that ~ would like to see him and Henry Meado~ s~t do~ together to fully understand these matters, and after doing so to ttsnsmit dlrectly to the ~arlous Chief Executives o£ - the tobacco industry an apology on the part of Harvard.. Dean Tosteson said, "Im~...uh,..uh...uh...uh... ~oro than prepared to • do that, and more." I said to Dean Tostesono "I think that would help. I do not went the tobacco industry to go away wlth such bad feellngs about Ha~vard. h~en made my presentationto the industrT representatives in New YoTk-~ecentl~ ! told them that Harvard was net one or two individuals, but was ~oze than that. I believe that both the industry and Harvard deservebetterunde~standing than uow exists, and~uch ~etter eor~unlcatfon." Dean Tosteson asked, "h~at role did Hitchell pla~? Did he pla~any role in solving these matters?t! r I responded, No, not really. At least not directly, because he has not had~uch, to say. In my ~eetings with him, hob.ever, he has been extremel~ helpful~ and ~ want to make it very clear to you that I appreciate his support." Dean Tosteson responded, '*Yes, I have seen that.~*