Tobacco Documents Online

/ (O "lr-

TJr~.: COUXCtL FO]~ TOBACCO I~I;sEAnClt-U.S.A.. INC. H HKl146002 Heeting of the Industry's Research Support Planning Com~t[ttee August 8, 1974 Present: Messrs. Hetsko, Judge, Bates, Hughes, Goldsmith, Roamer, Kloepfer, Kornegay, Gardner, Zahn and Hardy The meeting started with a report by Bates of the meeting of the • research directors that was h~ld July 9, 1974 in Washington at the request of the Industry's Research Support Planning Committee. They essentially approved the previous statement of the group prepared in July 1970. They noted that several of the recommendations of the Research Director had already been carried out, particularly on the management of CTR. They did not want to go into the program except in a very general way, and the three objectives mentioned in the 1970 report were considered about as detailed as they wished to be. The percentage of effort in the different areas was mentioned but no specific recommendations were made. (Gardner later stated that the general areas of research listed in the reapproved report were sufficlently broad to include all of the research that is currently being supported and that the relative amount of support m/ght differ from time to time because of a nu~er of factors.) The consensus was that primary effort should be placed on cancer, chronic pulmonary and age-associated cardiovascular disease. They specifically sta~d a dis like of short-term bloassay systen~ implying 2 to 3-week responses, skin painting and in vitro carcinogenesis. Consideration should be given to the "rate" of getting significant results and the matter of achlevability should be given consideration. It was generally thought that there should be only one, management for all health-assoclated research support. This brought up the matter of the legal, public relations, political and economic aspects. Hetsko asserted that CTR should not be concerned about the first three. Again, much reiterative discussion. Bates then presented a report to or for the Tobacco Working Group_ which evoked much discussion particularly because of the introduction which contained some statements that were not acceptable to the industry. This was stated to be a draft and not a final report. Hetsko thought that the industry representatives on the Tobacco Working Group should at least put in a disclaimer. Hardy thought that the statements sent in at the time of appointment to the TWG might cover the apparent passive concurrence of the members of the TWG with statements they could not agree. The researches supported by NCI and apparently approved through the TWG are listed below: ORNL /400,000 /756,000 American Health Foundation " " " 748,900 " " 160,000 Battelle 97,262 Environment Control Inc. 740,497 EI-R 98 CO['IG 01182

- 2 - HKl146003 Hazelton Laboratory 59,269 298,573 " 49,200 Little 66,732 " 89,237 Meloy Laboratories 453,272 Veterans Adm/nistration Hosp. (NJ) 229,290 Judge emphasized that we were not here to decide what was to be done but how it should be done. Goldsmith concurred. Hetsko stated that the how now had three facets: I. CTR was number 1 in the research area and should So remain. It should remain legally autonomous, policy determined by the SAB and budget approved by consensus. It should have a public relations aspect but its major function should be the support add fostering of the best; appropriate research and the monitoring of the fiscal and research aspects of grants and contracts. 2. Special projects. Although Hetsko did not like this as a research-associated aspect, he thought that it was a very valuable aspect for the industry. Although not an SAB responsibility, he thought that the quality aspect of the efforts supported should be monitored. Budgeting for these items is difficult but he thought that this type of research support was necessary. 3. Institutional grants. Washington University, Harvard, U.C.L.A. This was a most controversial area. No or little scientific or fiscal monitoring was possible. Hardy said that it would not be possible to get such. The yearly visitations were considered a waste of time by Goldsmith. Judge thought that all should be put under one canopy. After a recess Gardner was asked to comment on the three categories. He stated that there seemed little question about the main CTR program of grants and contracts so little time was spent on this item. The staff was assunting greater responsibility for the implementation and monitoring of contracts but as much scientific "feed-in" as possible was sought from the SAB aund selected members sat on the periodic~ monitoring groups. The special projects had been of concern but the staff had been able to assist in some instances to improve the statement of the proposal and clarify the objectives. The activities of the grantees were followed but were not considered a reportable part of the CTR progra/n. Neither were they budgeted as a part of the CTR program. A more satisfactory and efficient method for the implementation and administration of these grants seemed to be evolving or maybe the speaker was merely learning more about it. He was less concerned about those that were short-term than those that seemed to be perpetual. Institutional grants. The breadth of coverage of these grants exceeds the areas covered by the CTR-SAB in at least two instances. The duration of Support and the flexibility of budgeting and of proqram are greater tha~ with the CTR program. The staff of CTR has offered to exchange information with two of the institutional grants and has done so with one through several contacts. This is basically to avoid CTR 98 COHG 01188

., -, - 3 - HKl146004 unnecessary or &voidable overlap and determine possible gaps. The Ma~-vazd and UCLA grants do have areas of much interest to the CTR and some of its grantees. (I have a suspicion that the ntm~er of such requests will increase as the word gets around because of the great flexibility that these grants afford.) Judge, and I believe, Hetsko stated that in a budgetary sense these grants should not be considered competitive with the CCK program. Gardner and Zahn were asked how many of the SAB m~mbers were also grantees by Hardy. The answer was Lynch, Meier, Bing. This was a sensitive spot because of the AMA-ERF experience. The meeting closed with the understanding that Hardy wouldprePare for "presentation at the next meeting on September 6th a% o~tl~ne of "how" the organiza- tional system might be set up~ After some discussion it was decided not to se~ "this out before the meeting in order to have the expositional part (oral) presented at the same time as the written part to avoid predecision. The next meeting will begin at ]0:00 A.M. in the CTR conference room. Lunch wl]l be involved:" WUG:ek cc: RCH, WTH and ~4R C]-R 98 CONG 01'189