Tobacco Documents Online

SHOOK, HARDY, OTTMAN,MITCHELL ~. BACON February ii, 1967 TO: Frederick P. Haas, Esq. Cy Hetsko, Esq. H. Henry Ramm, Esq. Paul D. Smith, Esq. Addison Yeaman, Esq. I have received from Dr. Hockett a proposed_ ~by the Battelle-Northwest Institute. This in the proposal which was discussedby Dr. Hockett with General Counsel at a meeting some time ago. I understand that Battelle will submit another proposal for the actual animal experiments. I am enclosing herewith for each of you a Xerox copy of the Proposal and Agreement and of the pertinent pages of the Proposal itself. I am also sending copies of the same material to your Ad Hoc members in case you want to get their evaluation. Dr. Hockett rec- ommends approval of this portion of the project in the amount of $10,230.00, but will await your decision. I am also enclosing for each of you a copy of a memorandum which Ed Jacob requested that I distribute to General Counsel, having to do with Dr. Arthur Furst. You will recall that many months ago, perhaps as much as a year, Dr. Hockett indicated to General Counsel that he was going to "hibernate" for a week or so for the purpose of planning an overall inhalation program and coordinating the programs that are under way. This subject has come up several times since he first indicated that it would be done, and I have mentioned it to him on a number of occasions. To my knowledge, Dr. Hockett has never gotten around to doing this. Jacob's memo seems to be further evidence of the need both for a well planned inhalation program and for the co- ordination of standards to be used. If you agree that this is a present need, I would recommend that Dr. Hockett be invited to one of your meetings for the specific purpose of

Page 2 Feb. ll, 1967 General Counsel reporting on what has been done in this area and specifically what has been done toward carrying out his plan of organizing and coordinating inhalation studies. I have received from Dr. Hockett some material on Auerbach's work in which he claimed to have produced emphy- sema in dogs and which made such a splash of publicity at his AMA talk in June, 1966. This information reveals that the original grant was in 1962 by the Veterans Administration for the purpose of experimentally producing cancer in the tracheobronchial tree in dogs, in 1963 the grant was bythe American Cancer Society for the purpose of producing cancer in the tracheobronchial tree and esophagus in dogs, and in 1964 and 1965 the American Cancer Society grant was amended and shown to be for the purpose of producing "changes in the tracheobronchial tree of dogs". Thus, although Auerbach worked from 1962 on, he was unable to produce cancer in dogs, and then switched the purpose of his work to conform to what he believed his results to be. I think this is very signif~ icant. Sincerely, David R. Hardy DRH:S Eric.