Bliley Lorillard
[Regarding Kissen's Proposed CTR Special Project and Battelle's Dog Inhalation Study]
Abstract
Transmits confidential memorandum in longhand regarding "Kissen's work", indicating Hockett's endorsement for support from Council for Tobacco Research (CTR). Transmits Battelle Memorial Institute's proposal for "an inhalation study for dogs". Modifies study objectives because "[i]t is not intended, nor expected that there is anything about the test that would permit complete extrapolation of results on dogs to human beings". Requests feedback (attachments missing).
Fields
- Rank
- 1
- Company
- Lorillard
- Type
- LETTER
- Author
- Hardy, D.R.
- Author (Organization)
- Shook, Hardy & Bacon (Tobacco Industry law firm)Tobacco Industry law firm based in Kansas City, KS.
- Recipient
- Grant, P.R.
American cigarette manufacturer; makes Kent, MaxSatin, Newport, Old Gold, Style, and True cigarettes.
J. C. Russell was employed by Lorillard, Inc. and served as Counsel from 1965 to 1969. He was also on the Committee of Counsel. (Source: LOI/LOC Summary of Officer & Directors - LOI/LTC Liability Notebook)
Scientific Director of the Council for Tobacco Research from 1972-1974 (WSJ 2/11/93; Allman complaint). Bio-Research Institute BRI conducted a study for the CTR. When Syrian hamsters were exposed to smoke twice a day for 59 to 80 weeks, 40% of those of a cancer-susceptible strain and 4% of a resistant strain developed malignant tumors (WSJ 2/11/93). Before publishing the study in 1974, BRI's founder, Frederic Homberger, sent a manuscript to Robert Hockett, then scientific director of the CTR. Dr. Homberger says he had to do so because halfway through his study, the CTR had changed it from a grant to a contract so they could control publication. They were quite open about that (WSJ 2/11/94. Soon thereafter, Hockett and CTR lawyer Edwin Jacob went to Dr. Homburger's summer house in Maine. Hockett and Jacob did not want BRI to call anything cancer, they wanted it to be "pseudo-epitheliomatous hyperplasis," a euphemism for lesions preceding cancer (WSJ 2/11/93). Dr. Homberger said no, this is not right, it is cancer. Jacob told Dr. Homberger that BRI would never get a penny more if the paper was published without the changes. At the last minute, Dr. Homberger changed the final proofs to read "microinvasive" cancer, a microscopic malignancy. Nevertheless, BRI was never funded by the CTR again (WSJ 2/11/96) Hochett made a statement, as scientific director of the CTR circa February 1972 that neither tobacco and health research in general, nor that of the Council for Tobacco Research has established that tobacco use or cigarette smoking in particular is a major health hazard (Allman complaint, pp. 41-42). Robert C. Hockett was Scientific Director, Vice President and Research Director of CTR. See Bio-Research Institute, TTLA Almanac - Names. (N.M.'s CTR Who's Who)
Defense, Attorney with Chadbourne & Parke Representing ATC.
Associated with CTR, used as an expert in the Mississippi case.
Created and funded by the tobacco industry to award grants to study of the link between smoking and disease. Part of a four decade effort to cast doubt on the links between smoking and disease.
Document Images
Philip Grant: Esq.
Vi~ce -Presiden~ ~hd- Ge-ne~a~ -Counsel
P. Lorilla-rd Co~6an~- ' - -
2uu East 42nd ~- - ~ - - --
S,..~ree ,. - - "
_
New York, New York~uu~ ~ ~z T - . - _
Dear Phil : -
_ - _. in accord~ce-w~th our telephone conversatZon, i-am
enclosing herewith for your infor~atior~ a_ con~ide.nti~l memo-
randum in- longhan~ which Dr. H~kett sent me and which
your info~matio~ bnly~ togethe~ with copies of ~sev~xa~-a~ticLes
and editorials respec%in~ Dr~-Kis~en's work. As ~ shared on
the telephone, ~he proposal is that as a special project C.T.R.
would suppo;ct Dr. Kissen for a two yea£ period to the extent of
$56,000 per year, with a proviso that Dr. Kissen would be noti~
fled six m~nth~ before expiration as to whether or not C.T.R.
planned to continue the support beyond the two year period.
The une, er~ining and notes on the various articles
are mine ~d are worth your conside~-ation because they show the
imporh~nce of the area which Kissen is investigating. Thi~ mat.-
ter se~ms worthv;hile and is reconh~ended st~-ongly bzDr.
i am also enclosing a copy o~ a iettcr dated February 24
from Battelle Memori31 Institute m~king a pr=posal to Dr. Hockett
on an inhalation study for do~s You %<J_!l note that I have brac%[-
eted the t~vo paragr6;phs in the center of Page 2 because 1 do not
believe the wording of the p~-oposal is , ~-~"e~
paragraphs will undoubtedl3, be re~-~orded, but +},~..u o;)]~c[ive is to
uze the methods mentioned in these p~ragraFhs to det~-~m~ne
Philip Grant
-~r not the dogs are ~e~,~c~ the same amount of smoke e,_-.an.
e~u ~
_ lVa.,enu amount as hun,'_an=bein~s get It is not intended,
nor expected that +'~ne~-~ is anvthing~ about the test that would
permit complete extrapolation of results on dogs to human beings.
It is anticipated ~-~ ~' :
~ ~nzs work "~ be
~,~yu~ the six
. ml~:.~.t extended ~
..... d
month ~eriod if it appears ~-~. {~'~
p~m .... n.~. It is also ....
=~ -- ~
~p~t~s that
~,<~ r~rut~ some of Auerbach's work
the results here may ~=~nu =
I wou! reciate your g~v~ng me your decisions with
regard~ to these__ :two projects as early next weeK~ as possible. /{//~ "
Last Tuesday, I talked with Gene Anderson and told him
of the qenera! ~-
_ resu~u~ with regard to the reports which you are
going to have-Dr Spears examine next week° I will await word
from you on this befe~e givin~ Anderson a copy of the reports
;--~ ~-, ~. ~ ,~-. -
o " Sincerely,
David R. Hard],
DRH/v
Enc.
cc: John Russell
