Tobacco Documents Online

C ON F I DEN T I AL ' MEMORANDUM for RECORD Tobacco Institute Meeting onday, M rch 'I'3,""1972 Present: Senator Clements, Horace Kornegay, William Kloepfer, Fred Panzer, Anne Duffin, Dr. Huebner, Dr. Kastenbaum Bill Shinn (Shook, Hardy, Ottman, Mitchell and Bacon} C. B. Wade, Jr., H. C. Roemer, Jr.~ J. S. Dowdell Mr. Wade opened the meeting by reviewing the current status of the AMA-ERF contract and asked for opinions from those present relating to alternative courses of action that the industry might take should the present AMA contract be terminated prior- to the expiration of the agreement in 1973.~ SHINN: The problem is how to terminate the .agreement w-~thout creating an absolute vacuum. It is essential that the industry continue to support research,, but where should we be looking? There are many research projects ~that the industry could spend money on--cancer, heart, respiratory diseases--but our money should be spent to produce results. Not necessarily confined to smoking and health per se, but on some of the new promising developments which are begin- ning to point up other factors relating to disease. These would take away the burden now laid on smoking. Look for areas where the results will relieve the pressures on the industry. For example, .study the kind of people who smoke to identify differences from non-smokers, whi~ch would explain the statistical association. Research in this area looks promising. There are plenty of projects, but we need to look at the people doing the work in relationship to their standing in the medical-scientlfic research community. Industry can't afford to sponsor anyone second-rate.. There are many good people~ with established reputations ~whO have made overtures to us, but we have not zeroed in on any of~ them because of money. HUEBNER: The AMA is not looking atl their research with~the critical eye we are. They give it out to pe6ple who are trying to prove just how bad smoking is. Not much different than the Public Health Service. Believe we all recognize AMA-ERF is a bad investment, but how do .we get out With honor? For the moment, we are stuck with a bad situation. Before we get out, we need to look carefully at where we will go. The AMA research has no direction. Their people are

Tobacco Institute Meeting Monday, March 13, 1972 -2- taking tobacco money for work in other areas. We need to make some fundamental decisions, and thereare some significant opportunitiesto get some directed research done now. We need to know what type person is a chronic respiratory disease risk. We need valid tests, the same as we have .for diabetes. Who are these people? We should be able to identify them in their teens. We should also be.able to do the same with people who get malignancies. They are different people. We have to face it, now it is all the fault of cigarettes. We need to get some large-scale programs going along these lines. We must find out biochemically how people, get these diseases-- and why they do. SHINN: Gil and I differ on this point. In the court room i-~ is no defense to say people are different. This isn't enough. I am not saying the identification of sub-population groups isn't a good thing. Just that we should be cautious in this area. We are not talking about the CTR, but money flowing directly from the companies~ ROEMER: The money doesn't flow this way. But, sooner or later, we must know the truth. Maybe we should start now and accept the risk. PANZER: The only subTgroup identified now are the smokers. KORNEGAY: Technically, would the source of the research funding complicate your problem? SHINN: It's not all one way or another. But ~the closer you get the research to the main defendant thewors~ it is. In other words, "the more risky the project~ themore need to have it done by someone else." KASTENBAUM: We have nothing at this time to recommend that we divert funds to. But we are. going to have to make a decision on a project, or projects, to take the place of~the AMA.~ If it is not done now, it will haveto:bedone~next~.year~when the contract terminates. ROEMER:~ What we need is cohesive,dlrectedresearch. CTR and AMA now are dging only fragmented work. Later when CTR~ gets a new scienflflc directo~ and staffed up, .they-may under- take a directed program. • But I think the'Executlve Committee expects us to come in with our'recommendatlonslnow. WADE: How about some of the~projects~we~have in hand now. ]~here do we stand on Harvard, for instance? HUEBNER: Protocol now at 300 pages. They are not out to embarrass or destroy the industry. They~believe they can save it. They think that after they publish one or twopapers

Tobacco Institute Meeting Monday, March 13, 1972 -3- the whole smoking-and-health question will be reopened. They have been working on their project for a long time and they are convinced that all of the research work they have examined to date simply does not stand up. They have a talented, multi-disciplined staff and they are committed to go ahead with their project. The Program has not been costed as yet, but they expect that some of the money will also come from NIH. KASTENBAUM: The industry needs some group of people to be responsible for the expenditures of research funds .... an in-house scientific advisory board. KORNEGAY: Is the SAB capable of reviewing the Harvard project, or is it too sensitive? Consensus: The SAB is aware of the Harvard project, but they would probably want any funds that would be put into it for themselves. HUEBNER: I have a copy here of the University •of Nebraska pulmonary disease study proposal. They are convinced that smoking and pulmonary diseases are not causally related. They propose a six-year study project to prove this. They also have a competent staff, and their findings would be accepted. The project they submitted~to us calls for $380,000 the first year, and they would not want i~t~i~tart.~It-~,unless we would agree to financing through the ~slx-year study period, a $3.7 million total. ROEMER: We have a copy of Ed Jacobs' Yerushalmy proposal. This project calls for up to $600,000 per year for five to six years and would end once and for all one smoking and disease-theory that has been used against us. KLOEPFER: Conclusive proof that smoking is. not harmful to mothers would havea lot of. good public relations potential. It's been a highly emotional issue. WADE: All right, where do we stand? We need to move promptly, Maybe not before the meeting on the thirtieth, but certainly in a matter of weeks. HUEBNER: Harvard will be ready in the next couple of weeks. SHINN: Shouldn't Carl Seltzer be contacted? HUEBNER: He knows" the people and has~ a h.igh regard ~for them. There will be no problem there.' WADE: Can we hurry them up? We need ~to get to some of t-he companies and have them agree to move. Certainly we need to do th/s in a month or two at the most.

Tobacco Institute Meeting Monday, March 13, 1972 -4- KORNEGAY: I think we can delay informing the AMA until after their May ERF meeting. Don't think we need to bring the AMA-ERF program up at the meeting on the thirtieth. WADE: Should we be prepared for a leak before we are ready to make our announcement? KLOEPFER: That does not trouble me, but Mr. Galloway should answer Howard's letter, thank him, and say he will take up his proposals with his associates. KORNEGAY: I agree. AMA not likely to leak it, and no distribu- tion has been made of their letter. No other company has any knowledge of it. See no reason for the subject to come up on the thirtieth, but if it does~ we can refer to the Howard letter. The Homestead is coming up and we should tell them that we expect to have something to present to the Executive Committee by then. ROEMER: We need to have something to get an ~greement on before we present anything to the Executive Committee. We need to talk to some of the people well.in.advance. CLEMENTS: Get the votes before you bring the issue up. WADE: ~ j 66r~e~-~e~-£YA q-~-~-~ J.S.D~ D/bt CC: Messrs. C. B. Wade, Jr. H. C. Roemer, Jr.