Tobacco Documents Online

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND KE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. ] NO. E-121+4CG 2 I.D. ROGERS, INDIVIDUALLYs IN THE DISTRICT COURT 3 AND AS INDEPENDENT * EXECUTOR or THE ESTATE OF* MARJORIE HELEN ROGERS. +~ 4 DECEASED, ET AL + VS. +~ J R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO ~ G CCIMPANY. ET AL +~ JEFFERSON COUNTY. TEXA^ 7 N0. D-122+14^ f{ KAREN R. UUI•:C, ~ IN THE: DISTRICT COUF?T INDIVIDUALLY AND A3 +~ 9 t CXECUTRIX or THE ESTATE +~ . Or EI.AIN(: J. FA3ALAIS. * 1 Cl ~ DECCASED, CT AL. +~ or ' VS. +~ 11 ~ R. J. RCYNOI.DS TODACCO * I COMPANY, CT AL ~ JEFFER^a0N COUNTY. TCXA':~ / 12 I 14 1 DCP031TION 0ar" DR. SHELDON £Ot1MEi;^_. ~ I ]5 ~ VOLUME I i ] F. ~ - -- - _ .. _ _ ... - - - - - - - _ - - - -- - - ! 17 WITNE^ ; IN THf AFlOVE-STYLEt) CAU3C, CALLED BY THC f'LATNT;: (_' . ]< < TAt:EN BEFORE SECKY BEACH, CERT I F I ED ^HORTIIAND REFORTEFZ r-O" l 1? i TiiC STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE OFFICES OF JACOH. MEDINCER : 20 ~ FINNEGAN, 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NEW YOr:I ', 21 COMMENCING AT 3t00 P.M. ON THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 190^':. ~2 PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND WAIVER OF CO!ItJ' r.;.. 23 FURSUANT TO NOTICC'. i4 2!~ ; L_.________TAY.AFtLE COST DUE CY TF4E t'LAINTIFF':'. i1; R1 1t~T CO! ~RT REF`ORTF_'R". C.. lR E FE'# 0,1. `"t s.,7

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 N0N•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND KE CASES. I 2 3 4 Af`PEARAN rC Ss THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. . FiON. DALE K. HANKS TOWNSLEY, BUSH, LEWIS & RAMSEY 3550 FANNIN BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77701 APPEARING FOR THE PLAINTIFFS w J HON. ROBERT r. MCDERMOTT, JR. 6 JONES. DAY, REAVIS & POGUC L METROPOLITAN SQUARE 7 435 1 STH STREET NORTHWEST WASHINOTON, D.C. 20005-5701 8 - AND •- FION. WALTER .I. CRAWI'ORD, JR. 9 WELLS. PEYTON, BEARD, GREENBCRG, c HUNT k CRAWFORD 10 I P.O. BOX 3708 DEAUMONT, TEXAS 77704 11 i APPEARING i'OR VtE DCi'ENrtANT. ~ 12 1 R. J. REYNOLD S TODACC O COMPANY C 23 I•tON. WILLIAM G. ZIPIPIERMAN FUaN. DEBORAN TANNEt? 14 IinN. P'ATRIC•1: ;IF:F;Inr..E f •H00K, HARDY & BACOtJ 1S MERCANTILE DANK TOWECt. 20TH F"LOOR 1101 WALNUT 16 K.ANSAS CITY, MISSC+URI E•4106 I -- AND - 17 ~ 11ADRIAN R. KATZ ! ARNOLD & f ORTEi2 18 1200 NEW HAtiPSHIRE AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 19 - AND - FION. JAMES J. SANDMAN 20 ARNOLD & PORTER 1700 LINCOLN STREET 21 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 - AND - 22 HON. LAWRENCE L. GERMER 24 ORGAIN. BELL & TUCKER 470 ORLEANS PEAUMONT. TEXAS 77701 APF'EAR I NG FOFc THE DEFENDANT , PIIILIF MORRI S. INCORFOZaTED CCAUP1ONT COUF;T t!;CroiiT{-F:'. CTR HN 014626

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, r _, 1985 NUN • DISSEn1INATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. I 2 3 HON. JAMES W. RAYHILL HON. TILLIE LIM CARTER, LEDYARD & MILBURN TWO WALL STREET NEW YORK+ NEW YORK 10005 - AND - 4 J 6 7 HON. CHESTER J. WROBLESKI HON. ELIZABETH T. MARREN JACOB, MEDINGER & FINNEGAN 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10020 APPEARINC F'OR T1iE DEFENDANT, C COUNC IL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCIi-U. :.A. , ~! i HON. GORDON £,r' 1 I TI i KING & SPALDING 10 ~ 2w.00 TRUST CO11`ANY TOWCF: ; ATLANTA, OEORGIA 30303 11 , - AND •• ' HON. DALE DOWCLL / 12 i RIENSTRA. RIENSTRA S. DOWELL ~ 470 ORLEANS 1 ~ BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77701 14 ~ APPCAR I NC rCU: THf nEf ENDANT. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO COMPANY 1S, 16 HON. THOMAZ~ E. SEZANSnN r11ADB0URNL. PARKE, W1IITESIDE E. WI)I.F*- 17 ' 30 ROCKEFELLER F'LAZA NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10112 12 - AND - ~ HON. SAM CRUSE 19 HON. JOHN STRAWN ' ANDREWS & KURTH 20 ! 4200 TEXAS COMMERCE TOWER HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 21 I APPEARING FOR THE DEFENDANTS. 22 AMERICAN BRANDS, INC. AND THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC. 23 .a VE:.MtaNT CC;;.Ir.T rcErO(;TCi':: L. f R Ht"4 014629

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT S UBJECT ;" 4 1985 NUN•DISSEMINATION ORDER C4NFIDEMTIALITY AGREFMENT. IN RUGERS AND DUKE CASES. 1 2 ., ., 4 g 6 7 C HON. JOHN 0. BISSELL STRONC<. PIPKIN+ NELSON L. DISSELL SAN JACINTO BUILDING BEAUMONT. TEXAS 77701 APPEARING FOR THE DEFENDANT, LORILLARD, A DIVISION OF LOEW'S THEATRES, INC.. HON. MARGARET ALEXANDER COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. P.O. BOX 7566 WASHINrTON. D.C. 20044 APPEARING FOR THE PEFENDANT, 9 I THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE. INC. E 10 I I10N. MICHAEL W. HOCUC 11 tJEBSTER & SHEFFICLD 2ROC~ TEXAS COMMfRCE TOWER / HOI t STON, TEXAS 77002 1~ l 1' ~ APfEARINC FOR THE PEFENDANT;, I LIGGETT GROUP, INC. AI4D 14 ~ LIGOETT & MYEFtS TOBACCO COMPANv, Itv,-. 15 I H4td. HUBERT OXFORP BCNOF:CNSTCIN, OXFORD, RADrORD L. JOFIN--_N 1G ALLICC DANK BUILDING BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77706 17 I AF'r'CARING FOR THE DC'FENDANTS, 1c PRICE & COMPANY AND I GROCERS SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. ~•. 19 HON. LIPSCOMB NORVELL ~0 BENCKENSTEIN, NORVCLL, BERNSEN & NATFI:,N 600 INTERFIRST TOWER 21 BEAUMONT. TEXA~mrl 77702 ~-, a. d. APPEARING FOR THE DEFENDANT, GROCERY SUPPLY COMPANIES. INC. ..,, ,... _4 FECI:Y A. BEACId, CST;. RPr BEAUMONT COURT REPORTERS ['A^.TCX_.TCX FFiEEWAY .DEAUMnNT, TEXAS 77703 r•rAUti,I14T COURT F~EF'C~RTE:f.'. CTR HN 014830

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AiiG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 1 I IT Ia STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND ECT4JEGN : I COUNSEL FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES HERETO THAT THE WITNE'.-. 3 MAY SIGN TIIIS DEPOSITION BEFORE ANY NOTARY PUDLICI NOTICC 4 OF FILING BCINQ WAIVED, AND THAT SAID DEPOSITION OR AN1' S PART THCREOF. WHEN SO TAKEN, MAY BE USED ON THE TRIAL 01- 6 THIS CAUSE WITIt THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS ir TIIL WITNE:.': 7 WERE PRESENT IN COURT AND TESTIrYING IN PERSON. C ? 1T IS FURTIICR STIF'ULATED AND AGRCCD rY •ANL, DCTWCEN rOliNCCL rOR T11C RESPECT I VE PART I CS HERCT4 THAT T:;": NECESSIT1' F'OR FRCSCRVING OEJECTION. AT THC TIME OF TAVIt1•'• . IS WAIVEri, EXCFFT FOR THE FORM OF T11F: Q1JESTION AND RESroNsIV[NC3S, -OF TH[ ANSWEFi, AND THAT ANV ANn ALL OTt1ER C 10 r * * s * * t r * a * * a . 17 14 LEGAL Ot;JG: T I ON::. TO TH I G DEPOS I T I ON. OR ANY PART THERCQ7• I 1~ MAY EE VR~_ ED AT T1IC T I ME SAME I S SOUCIIT TO BC OrFCREG I N ~ 1!• ! EVIDENCC ON THC TRIAL Of' THI3 CAUrE. 1^; 24 41 24 GE.;UNON'' COLt(:T T:C~ GRTCR'• CTR HN 014B31

~ THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NuN•Uca3EiiiNATIUN ORDER j IN RUGERS AND DUKE CASES. I 1 2 3 4 z i 6 7 C THIS 0 CONfjplA~~ SuBIECT TO AGREEMEHT, REFO RTER'S NOTE+ WHEREUPON TIiC WITN[Sti WAS SWORN IN BY ROBERT S. ORDMAN. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK. NOTARY NO. 4519441. DR. SHELDON SOMMEFtS. HAV I NG F I RST BEEN DULY SWORN, TEST I F I ED AS FOLLOW:?•, TO• •wI T: MF:. HANKSt WE'RE GOING TO IiE TAKINC, THE 10 ~ DlCP`O sI T IOtJ or DR. SHELDON C. SOMt1ER'= . DO YOU HA VC ~ 11 1 ANl' ODJCCTILtN TO OUR USE or THIS TEXAS COURT REF`OF2Ti #-; I TO TAI:C DOWN TIi~.' DEPOSITION? ]•C MR. RAl'F:ILL: NO, WE DON'T. I ASS!It1C i ]4 ~ TIiAT T!•It:, DCro:ITION, THE TRAN3CRIf'T, AN1 Tlli••'. 1J I I DOCl1MCNTS THAT BECOME PART Of TH IS nEF'OS I T I ON AFtf i'•~ I ~UDJE~: T TO THE AUGUST 20 ORDERS OF JUDGC TFIOMA :. AN",! 17 ` JUDGE I:I f4r,,, THAT THEY W I LL NOT SC D I S SEM I NATm ~ 13 UNTIL EURTHER ORDER Or TIfE COURT. lt: MR. HANKSI THAT'S rINr-. DO YOU HAVE AN•i 20 OBJCCTION TO JUST HAVING ONE TRANSCRIPT PRCPARED 21 AND FILFD WITH THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED IN THE f:OGEF;'-!' 22 r.ASE AND EVERYONE WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT CAN PL-- ~? USi'D IN Tf,[' DUi.'C GA~E, ALSO^ ~ ^d M~•:, F:Al'LIIt.Ls T1IAT'a FIt1C. j MR. I~ANt'^s I'M COINC. TO 00 F,ttGAa ANr. L"•; DEALiM~ INT COURT RErOr',TCR'; [_. 1 R F 1!'°F 014832

I ( THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 1985 NUN • DISSEir1INATION ORDER CONFlDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. 1 1% THE tiAHC EXIIIDITS TIiAT WE USED IN Df:. HOCK[TT'L• DEPOSITION. WE'RE GOING TO USE THE SAME NUMDERIN~ SYSTEM. DO YOU HAVE ANY PRODLEM WITH THAT? 4 MR. RAYHILLI NO. JUST SO LONG AS YOU DO C S E• IDENTIFY THE C.T.R. PAWL' NUMDER3 SO THAT IN BOTH DEPOSITIONS READERS WILL UNDERSTAND 4/HAT DOCUMENT•_• 7 i ^ ~ . ^! YOU'RE SPEAKING OF. MR. HANI:Ss I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY 11C,'JC TttE EXttIDIT3 ATTACtICD TO DR. 3OMMLRS' DEI'OSITION, :i~ 11 At_£:-D. TFIE-V WILL .0.M.T DC THF' SAMC NLttiGE-f;INC• SY.-TC:tt. , / I 1~ EXAMINATION ( 1^ . 14 F•e Mr.. HANt; : : 1` Q u1ULr YOU CIVE US YOUR F'ULL NAMC t-OR TttC F2EC:Gf;E+, 1/. PLCA'3C. I 17 ~ A C I RST NAPtE ^I ICLItiON, S-{ 1-E-L-D-O-N, M I DPL.E NAMf 1? CHARLES, C-H-A-R-L-E-S. LAST NAME COMMERS, l ~ I 0 WHEr;E DO YOU LIVE. DR. SOMMERS? A t10ME AnDftES^, CAMI+RIDOE. C-A-M-C-fi- I-D-G- E_. WAY, ^'' ! W-A-Y. ALPIN[. A-L-P-I-N-E. NEW JERSEY 07/:20. i ~' 0 L1F'. S4MMEr.^_., WOULD YOU GIVE US A Sf:IEF DCSrf:IF'TIOta ft.^ yiil; r% EDUCATION:.L. BACKGROUND STARTINr WITH YOU^ Ui4tcRt:f::,D! tATC WOF21:-' PE:,UMUi1T COURT REf"GRTCr: L, 1 E°q+ t tN 0146331

t 4 1 I THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT T0 AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT 1Or 1985 NON • DiSSE~•IiNATION ORDER CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. 1 Q I WENT TO HARVARD COLLEGE. GRADUATED IN 1937 WITH 2 A BACHELOR OF SCIENCEi WENT TO HARVARD MEDICAL 3 SCHOOL. GRADUATED WITH AN M.D. IN 1941. 4 0 WOULD YOU GIVE US A DESCRIPTION OP' YOUR EMPLOYMENT S I HISTORY IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, PLEASE"' E•~ A I WAS AN INTERN IN MEDICINE AT THE UNIVEf;;ITY Oi 7 I CHICAGO CLINICS CALLED DILLINGS, D-I-L-L-I-N-G-S• 6,~ ^! HOSf°ITAL. CHICAGO. JULY. 1941 TO JUNE. 1542. I WENT IN THE ARMY AT THE CND Or JULY, 1942, CAMC 10 I OUT. AtdD WAS ON TERMINAL LEAVE UNTIL MARCH, 1946. i 1l. ~ I APRIL., 1^4e• I DCCAMC A RESIDENT IN PATHOLOGY AT N::W C 1= ~ CNC:LAND DCArONE^Z, IIOSPITAL. BOSTON. AN^ WA'•; THCP2C 1 UNT I L.1UNE Or• 1; 41. FROM JULY TO DG:CaH3;_,• 017 1^4^ 34 1 WAS; A RESIDt't.:T IN f ATHOLOGY AT THE FF;('E I.n^FITA~. . C 1~ ~ I FO;2 WOMCN. DRnOF;LINE, MA;3; AhD 14, FROM JANUARY TO JUNE OF 1949, I WA^_. A RE:' I DENT I N I 7 I PATHOLbCY AT DOSTON LYING•-IN HOSFITAL. THEN, IN JULY OF 194^> UNTIL JUNE OF 1950 I WAS A RESIDENT IN 19 :n I~ I CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, HENRY FORD HOSf-ITAL. DCTROIT. IN JULY OF 19Z0 I RETURNED TO THE NEW ENCLANLi 21 DEACONESS HOSPITAL AS A STAFF PATHOLOGIST, AND I 22 REMAINED THERE UNTIL SEF'TEMBER OF 19!;3. AT THAT TiMC I BECaM': TIIE CHIEr OF THE LAAORATOF;Y AT W A.:T 2 a W;,^• TttEN .r;-;LLCI! MA!~^ACttU,CTTS MEMORIAL I,G::f`ITAL'• 2~ ^TON: AND I REMA I Nt'D THERE UNT I I_ 1>:• 1. 114 DENUMOtdT -rnURT REF'Ot;TE'F•; C: R_ HN 014834

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AV',, 20, THIS DUCUtiErir SUBJECT TO 1985 NON-DISSEiJINATION ORDER CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES, % I 2 3 4 s BECAME, THE PATHOLOGIST AT SCRIPPS, MEMORIAL FIOSPITAL. LA ..fOLLA, SPELLED L-A ONE WORD, J-O-L-L-A, SECOND WORD. CALIFORNIA. I REMAINED THERE UNTIL 1963. IN 1963 I RETURNED TO NEW YORK AND BECAME THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND THEN LATER DIRECTOR Or PATHOLOGY AT DELAFIELD, D-E-L-A-F-I-E-l.-~1• NO SP I TAL , NEW YORI ; AND WAS THERE UNT I L I N 1960 I BECAMC THE DIRECTOR OF LAGORATOF2IEG AT LENOX, L-E-N -0 -X, tiILL HOSPITAL+ NEW YOraV. ANn I jo F:Cs,IGNCD ri:0m TFI[r:C IN TItE CND Of ALtGU': 11, 1?01 . , 11 i Ff:QM ^aEFTEMDEt:. 19^1 UNTIL THE PRESENT, I At1 i: SCIENTIFIC I1Ii:E"CTOR. COUNGIL FQT TCIEACGO R[S[Ar;CI% i" O HAVE VN.! [VER 61'•1Ctd A DEPOSITION D`rar•.C, LiR. 14 ^-•OMMCF: S.? 1 r A TWICE DZF0 RC. 14. C!' WHEN WOULT? I IAVE FCCN TFtC F I RST T I ME'' 17 i A THZEC OR FOUR YZARS AGO IS MY MEMORY. iC, ( Q D0. YOU I:NOU THE NAMC Ot' THE CASC^• 1~ ~ A NO, I DON'T REMEMBER THE CASE. I DON'T REMEMBER 20 ~ THE LAW rIRM. ~ 1 A DO YOU REMCMflEFt WHEi:E THE DEPOS I T I ON WAS G I VEN^. 22 I A N0. ~~ n DO YOU I'NOW TNC NATUf:E Or TME' CASE? ?.4 ,'•, Y~:.. IT WAS A MALPRACTICC CAS~. 2° r 41HAT A£O11T T{tE SCCONn TIME YOU GAVG A TiEf'oCITIGN, rZr;t it10NT COU^T RCF`0RTCR -; CTR- HN 014=83S

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT T0 AUG. 20, 1985 Nwl-WS5Ei.I1NAiIUN ORDER IN ROGEK~ AND DUKE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. ic• I WI ICN WAS Tt IAT''' ~ A THE SECOND TIME WAS WITHIN TH E LAST FE W MONTHS. 3 Q DO YOU KNOW THE NAME OF THE C ASE? 4 A CASES ARE OFTEN CALLED BY THE NAME OF THE 8 G COMPLAINANT. THIS CASE WAS C CASE+ G-•A-L•-P-R--A- I--T-H. I TH ALLED INK. THE GALBRAITII 7 O 13 TNIS OUT IN CAL21-0RNIA? ~ A TttC CASE. I nCLIEVC, IS FCING CURt'c ENTL 1' TFtIE'ri Ir, / ^ f i CALIFORNIA. ' 0 HAVC YOU CVCE: TCSTIFIED IN CO URT R EFOR C^ L I YE3. tiOW MAN'ti' T I Mf -^•^ 1: ~ A AT ArC TWCLVf' I u:.' A WITNESS TO A N G;lJ TONOE;It.C i 14 ; i ACCIDENT. Tt1AT tiA: THC FIRST TIME . £ CTtJCEN AND 1980, I AF'f CAf'ED I N COURT APFR OX I t 1ATELY F I VE' TIMES, ONCE A:: AMICU3 CURIAE. r 18 C! 1 DID YOU EVri: Ai'f EAR AND TCSTI A CLAIM ArAINST A CIGARETTE M FY IN ANUFA A C CTUf ACE INVC+LVIN:- .ER? 1^ 20 MR. RAYHILLI IN CO URT? 21 MR. HANK3= YES. « .^._'• A ONCE. -d 4 r, WII::N N:- : TI I:,T.` ^.Z ; A IT 4JA^_• n.'["f; TEN 1'CAf;' AGC-. MAYFI- i'If TfLN. ur_A11NnNT rOI'r;:T R[PO^T[:R'': R.r t R !! F"t 014B3G7

, I 2 4 THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AQI~'10,. 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. THIS DOCUMEriT S(!R1EC1 CONFlDENTIALiTY AGREEMEIyT 1? R DO YOU KNOW THE NkiMC. OF THAT CASE^ A NO. I FORhET. O WIIERE WA3 THE CASE TRIED? A" IT WAS TRIED IN LAKE OF THE OtARKS IN A LITTLE TOWN CALLED WAR•_^•AW. L Ct WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THAT CASE, IF YOU RCCALL'• 7 A THE CLAIM BY THC DIVORCED WIFE ON IICHALr Ot' THC Cl1ILDRCN WAS THAT THE I-it1SDAND IiAD DIED A: A RESULT ?; or SMOKINO SOMIM BRAND OF CIOARETTES. 10 : t'! WCRC YOU RCTAINC(1 Ll' THE CIGARETTE t1AtJUrACTUrcEt; A". 1 1 1, AN EXPERT W I TNC•^s c: I N TF IAT CASE? / 1: ~ Mr,, tcAYIIILL t CAN YOU nCrINC 14 ~ 1 ~ I E•Y Mr. HANIa•: DID YOU AF`PEAF. AS AN EXPERT WITNESS GN CAt.r or 17 ! THC CIGATETTE MAhuiFACTURER^ iC ; A I WAS. AN EXf ERT WITNESS F'OF: TIiC DErENt.E'. i; I! Q WHAT WAS T11C NATURE OF YOUR TESTIMONY^ 20 '' A I EXAMINED TFIC MICROSCOPIC SLIDES AVAILAELE. I I 21 ; TESTIFIED TH:,T Tt4C MATERIAL WAS SO LIMITED, SO 22 2• POORLY PRErARCD AND STAINED, IT WAS ALMOST IMFOSSIBLC TO TELL WHAT IT WAS. IT DID NOT ArPC:,^ TO rC .• C'ArCIrJOMA. rCR11AFS IT WAS A L YMr11''iM-. C! DID TFI,_ CAC•C INVOLVE LUNG CANC.CD? mA! IMCINT COlj'r, T F:ErORTCFt'_. C T ~ ININ 0 1 4 83" 7

i THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, ' 1985 NON•DISSEMINATIOIi ORDER I IN ROGERS AND D K CA.SES. I i ~ A NO ONI: COULD BC CERTAIN. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 2 n I MEAN, WAS THE CLAIM ONE Or LItNG CANCERT 3 A YES. 4 Q HAVE YOU BEEN DESIf3NATED BY A DEFENDANT IN THE ~ GALDRAITH CASE TO APPEAR AS AN EXPERT ON THEIR 6 BEHALF? i 7 I A I DON'T KNOW FNOUGH LAW TO ANSWER THAT ClUE^oTION ; ACCURATELY. IF YOU WOULD EXPLAIN TO ME Wf1AT ^ "DESIGNATED" MCANS, MAYBE I COULD ANSWER TT. • WF1AT i f n f DOC -a TNAT MCAN'~ 1I 11 I t? FIAVE YOU EEEN Af`i'ROACFIED DY A DEFENDANT IN THF 12 ~ OALDRAITII CASE' ADOUT TEOTIFYING TO CERTAIN MATTER=• 1:~ IN THEIR VCHALF^ 14 ~ A I WAS ASKCD Ir I WAS WILLING TO AFPEAr,. YES. ~ 1S Q ARE YOU WILLINO TO APPEAR? 1- • A I AM. 17 ~ C WEa I Cl t C I GARt"TTC MANUFA .r.TURER IS THIAT? I iA I UNDERSTAND REYNOLDS. 1^ Q YOU HAV[N'T YET APPEARED FOR TItCM, I4AVC YOU? 26 21 22 23 2 4 A NO. a HAVE YOU REVIEWED ANY MATERIALS IN PREPARATION FOr THIS DEF'OSITION? A NO. I'VE CONTINUED TO READ THE MEDICAL LITER.:TURE'. A=• I ALWAVS DO. 2~ C? FIAVE YOU PIc.CU:Sf:Tl TKC DEFOCITIOt1 WITFt AN'f LAW1'Cr=•^ t:i_AUMQNT f.OUFT RCrijRTL Rr. 1; t.r s ['w. f IN 01`°r8JB

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT T0 AUG. ?0, 1985 NJ4 • UISSc,ol NATIUN OKUtR IN RUGEK,i hnD DUKE CASES. THIS DOCUME,v r SUitjECi „ CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 1-. 1 I A YCS. ^. 0 WHO WOULD THOSE BE? ~ 3( A WITFI MR. WROBLESKI AND MR. FINNEOAN OF THIS OrCIr_-C 4 ~ AND MR. RAYHILL. !~ i 0 ANY OTHER LAWYERS? 6 A NO. 7 C~ ANY OTFIER NON- LAWI'ER.-;.? 0 ~ A MR. OERTENDACH. TI 1E. PR[3I DE• NT AND MY ADM I N I STR.;T I t';_ ^; 11 Cl I ~ t- 1~ ' 14 r., 17- I E. I A 17 I Cr 1 C i A 1^: ~ 0 20 21 A 22 0 :~ I A ~r ~ f.'Uf'CR I Ot:. KNOW^_• THAT I. AM HEFE AND F IAD TO Ai'PF2GVC M1' COMINOt BUT DISCUSSED IT WITH HItt, t1O. f{AVt' YOU READ MR. GERTFNBACH'S DEFO."ITICN IN TIII: CASr^ ^,RE YOU A MCMPCfc Cir THt: CCI[NTIF'IC AToi'ICGF;1' nr THE C.T.R.? YES. WHEN DID YOU F,ECOMC A MEMBER? I N 1967. HAS YOUR MEMDCRSHI P BEEN CONT I NllOUS FROl1 THEN UNT I L NOW? YES. WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR BECOMING A MErIG,.F' ABr11!T 1965 I WAS IN'.'ITED TO PRESENT MY OWN RESEAR ; I FOARi:. Tf TFi:+T MECT1tY_• OF- THE SCIENTIt'IC ADVISORY T11fIJ. ^-•COH7 tinNTli~ LATER DR. C.C. LITTLC• THEN TI-a'' VGAUM,ItiT COURT F:Ef'Ctr%TER'• C! R ! t!'Y t_,f 1"I'B39

I I I ~ HIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, H{S DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO ( 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER CONFIDENTIAUTY AGREEMENT 14 . IN ROGERS AND DUK CASES. I 1 ~ ~ SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, ASI:ED MC IF I WA;p WILLIN_• Ti. 2 JOIN THE BOARD. 3 ~ 0 ' AND YOU ACCEPTED? 4 A YES. 5 0 WHAT KIND M' RESEARCH DID YOU PRESENT TO THE C.T.R. 7 IN, I BELIEVE, 1963? F.: 7 Mr. RAYISILLs IT WAS TO THE S. A. T~. L 10 i tIl' Mf:. FfANI:S t 11 ~ O TO THE Z.A.D. ~ 12 ~ A I HAD WR I TTEN A PAi'EF: CALLED "HOST OF FACTGC; ":' I N l i_: FATAL I11_IMAN LUNO CANC: R" FUBLISHE[1 IN "TNC Af;C;II'.'C•.• 14 QF F ATHOLCk Y. " 19ZJt, V4i.U11E E.S. 115 0 WHAT ARE YOUR DIJTIE3 AS SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR Of 1! C.T.R.? A I AM TO A^SI:T THE PROFEc^/JIONAL STA1T' AND TFIC' 1 C~ CCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD IN TRYING TO FINA TH-C . 19 BE-^•T SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATORS AND THE BEST 20 IN3TITUTIONr WHO DO BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; IN \ 21 FART I CULAR , RESEARCH ON MATTERS OF SMC>~C I NC• AND 2 H A T 2 II. E L 23 (; ^ I NCE 19S 1 HAVE YOU BEEN SUCCESSFIJL I N F I ND I N.r, Tt tr 24 PC^_•T RCSE:.; RCHERC I N THAT AREA? 2' I A I WOULD RATt'tEF: OTHERC WOULD SAY. I THINI' EVEF", Bri,IJMONT CiIiJ,-.T R[t'r;r.TL7rZ; CTR HN 0 14840

~ THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO I 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER CONFlDENTIAUTY AGREEMENT. 1 ~ IN RDGERS AND DU WES. I YEAR, NOT NECESSARILY DUE TO MY OWN EFFORTS. TIIC 2 3 4 Q QUALITY OF THE GRANTEES AND THE INSTITUTIONS NAS RISEN. HAVE YOU MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO FIND THE BEST 5 INVESTIGATORS TO DO RESEARCH ON THE SMOKING AND 6 HEALTI-1 I SSUC? 7 E A G? YES. YOU FEEI. YOU' VE DONE A COMi'ETENT JOB AT THAT? 9 ( A I WOULD RATHER OTHERS WOULD SAY THAT THEY Anrc- 10 I SF',T I ci I ED CIf: F'LEASEft WI T!i MY WORK. I ALWAYS tK1 TFIr i 11 DE•T I CAN. ~ i 12 ~ 0 nOC^ THE C.T.R. FERFOFtM EVALUATIONS OF RESCARCI: ~ 13 ~ OTHER TIiAN THAT CONDUCTED r.Y I TS ORANTCE^? 14 1 ~ 1Z. ~ MR. RAYHILL: tADDRESSINr COU'T FtEF'CiRTEr; 16 I COULD WG HAVC TIIAT READ BACK, PLEASE? 17 ~ 1F REPORTER'S NOTCt WHEREUPON THE FOLLOWIN,-, C: 19 QUESTION WAS READ BACK BY THE COURT REf`nRTE' : 20 ~ 21 "QUESTIONI DOES THE C.T.R. FERi'ORM EVALUATION". 22 OF RESEAQCFi OTHER THAN THAT CONDUCTED BY ITS GRANTE,:."•" , 24 , A NG. ~~ r? ,i',, YC,i l nCjN'T "YC~U" t1EANING C:. T. R. f~ : I TS S. A. L•. rEAUMONT COURT RErORTER ~ CTR F tf"1 01"YB"Y 1

( l C 1 2 3 4 J 6 THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN RO ERS AND DUKE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFiDENTIAUTY AGRE.EMENT. YOU DON'T EVALUATE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS WRITTEN BY OTtt[r- RESEARCHERS IN THE £MOKING AND HEALTH AREA^ A NOT AS A GROUP. 0 DO YOU DO IT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS? A EACH INDIVIDUAL TO REMAIN UP TO DATE DOES WHAT HE OR SHE SEES FIT READINO IN THE GENERAL MEDICAL 7 LITERATURE AND IN T14E SPECIALITY LITERATURE, AN1t I 0 DO TH.;T, TOO. ^ (? SO, I TAKE IT IT'S NOT A FUNC'TION f)F THE C. T. R: TO ~ 10 t1.?t4ITO,': AND EVALUATE THE aCICNTIFIC LITERATURC ON 11 cMOI; I N-N AND FIEALTH' 12 A CORRECT. 1^ i Q uH:.T tiL:nUT f;ft'ORTINC. TFIF RESULT'. fROtt THC 4TUDIC:• t-UND:.G BY r_.T.ft.? I3 TIIAT A FUNCTION or r_.T.t;.^ A YE':. ~ 11A~. r_.T.f.. IN GOOD FAITIi ftCPORTED THE ftESULTS. or I T ; r,RAtJT:~" 1f A YES. YOU REALIZE THAT THE SCIENTISTS MAI:C TFiC 19 f'URLICATIONS AND C.T.R. DOES NOT ITSELf PUDLISI1 20 RESEARCfI. 21 Q DOES C.T.R. MAKE THE FINDING',". PUBLIC IN ANY WA1' 22 OTHCR THAN ITS S.A.B. MEMBERS SEEKINI3 PUBLICATION 23 I N TF IE JOURNALC'^ 24 A TIiAT O! ~C^_•TI4M 'T CAt!'T ANSWER AS • PHt;ASCD. " i 0 OTHER THAN THE S. A. D. MC11CEi;:. F`UFLISHINC THEII': E,; At -IMONT Cl')U^T RC'FGRTCQr. CTR H~~ 0 1~~~~

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER CONFIDENTIALJTY AGREEMENT. IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASE& 1 W4RK.^:•, D4ES C.T.R. FROM TIME TO TIMC MAI:C rUFsLIC 2 THE RE^UITS OF ANY or THE -- 3 4 MR. RAYt1ILLI I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'FIE S 6 A3KIN.r, WHEN YOU SAY S.A.D. MEMBERS PUDLI^tt THCMl,'CLVCy - •- 7 c^• 1 DY MR. FIANI•'.'_;: 9 ; Q S. A. D. MCMECrS SCEK PUi3L I CAT I01ti1 I N MCD I CAL AND 14 i SrIENTIrIf' JOURNALS. I TAKC IT^ i ii 1.^ ~ I MR. RAYHILLl I'M CONFUsCCs W11ETIiEr, YoU'rC 13 A^KI NG t'O~ % TF iE C. A. 8. MCMC[f?~: 0^ TNE CRANTEE :, . 14 M^. HANK:•= I'M CONrUc.,Ct.. I MEANT Ttii: ~ 1 R ~ rRANT&C-C'^. 1 4. 17 ; BY MR. HAfa:.'z 1 f I' W LCT'£ OTArT. OVER. OTHER THAN C. T. Ft. 'S GRANTEE^_• 19 I SEEKING PUBLICATION or THE RESULTS or THEIR 20 I STUDIES. DOES THC C.T.R. FROM TIME TO TIME MAKE 21 I PUBLIC IN ANY WAY THE RESULTS OF ITS GRANTEE?' 22 STUDIES? ^3 i A TIIERC ARE ANNJAL REPORTIS. ~ : 4 G At';C TI ICRf AN1'+ 0TI IEi: T TFDt ~ RCCI flC~ TI {F ANN•J(,L 2~ REPnr-T : TI IR-)lj?I1 WHIr_.14 C. T. R. MAI'.C'. T11C FIIJPttil_ ?. CCACIMCit1T GOI.Ir-:T F;Cr'OF?TCr:• CTR HN 014843

c I I © 2 3 4 3 6 THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, Il8S NUN•DISSEniINAfION ORDER IN ROGERS AND D_,UKE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. PUBLIC"' A SHOULD ANYONE REQUEST A RE-PRINT OF THE PUf'LICATICIN OF ANY ORANTEE. AN ATTEMPT WOULD BE MADC TO PROVIIIC THEM A RE-PRINT. BUT THAT WOULD TAKE AN ACTION rY SOMEONE ELSE SCEKiNr TH[ INFORMATION. RIOHT? 7 A YC:. E Q DOE^ C. T. R. MAIL OUT ANY INP0r%P1AT ION ON ITS OWN y INITIATIVE REGARDING THE RESULTS Ot' IT3 GRANTEES' 1~ ( CTUDIC''' 11 i A YEs. 1-4 ~ n WC1ULD YOU PESCRIE[ THAT? I 1^ ~ A TI U0.•C A^t' THC ANNUAL REFORTi. 14 f 0 TI IOCC AF;i MA I L CD OUT TO I ND I V I L1UAL'.*- 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 24 A TO INDIVInU.+LS AND INSTITUTIONS. Q DO YOU HAVC A MAILINL% LIST OR SOMCTHING? A I BCLICVC SO. Q DO YOU IIA I L THCM OUT TO f HYS I C I ANS? A INCt.UflINO PHYSICIANS. YE3. 0 FtOW WA. THE MAILING LIST PREP`ARCD^ A I DON'T KNOW. a I S AN ATTEMf T MADC TO REACH PNYSI C I ANS I N PART I C.tILAr W I TI i Ti iE ANNUAL REPORT S? MF;. RAYH I LL I WHAT DO YOU MEAN "rHl".: C I AN' EtEAUMONT COURT RCPOf:Tr:r:~• l..r TR t l! "t 014B44

TkIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT T0 AUG. 20, 1985 NuN•WSEtdINANON ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN ROGERS AND DUK,E CASES CONFRDENTIAUTY AGREEMENT. I 2 IN FARTICULAi:"" MR. HANKSt I'M TRYINO TO FIND OUT 3 WHCTHER THE LIST IS A RANDOM LIST OR PHYSICIANS, DO S THEY COM1'RISE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE LIST OR WHAT. 6 C 7 BY MR. HANI;St I ` ~ Q DO YOU UNDERSTAND? ^ i A I IMIDLRSTANCt. BUT I OON'T KNOW. 11 ; HA S T1i= C. T. R. EVCR HCLD ANY FRES S CONFCRENCES? A NO. ~ 0 HAVF MEMCE'f: s Ct4' THC C. T. R. EVEF: Ai'PEAREf1 AT PRESS.' 13 Cnrvr ERCN~'C:~ ^; 0r4:,0RED BY SOMCONC CL3C^: 4 1 33 ; MR. RAYHILLt IDY "MEMnCRS, 1' WHO DO Yp~t nC:,r:- I 1:• ~ MR. HANK.St EITHER C.T.R. STAFF OR S.A.D. 17 ! MCMFlEi::. C lE: ! PiR. RAYHILLt <ADDRESSING COURT REFORTEr*: 1? f NOW LET'S HAVE THC QUESTION READ BACK. i 0 21 F:EFCtRTER'S NOTEt WHEREUPON THC FOLLhWINC 22 QUESTION WAS READ BACK BY THE COURT REFOr,1;:~•: 24 "Oi•tC~T,IONt HAVE MEMI?EF;S or TI4C C-. T. rt. EVCR A-rrr,,Ar:cr AT F`REs3 CONFERENCC? Sf'ON:ORCP rY Snr1EGN[' rCai irtMJT r_'ni.tf;T r,CF'GRTfr:'. CTR HN 014845

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON • DISSEtdINATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. G 1 2 3 4 S E• 7 s 9 ELSE^" A I EC-L 1 EVE SO. Q HAVE YOU EVER APPEARED AT SUCH PRESS COldFERENCE~^ A AS YOU ASKED THE QUEST I 0N. I HAVE TO ANSWER I N T! I I"WAYs FOR TEN YEARS I WAS THE CFtAIRMAN or THE MENTAL HYGIENE MEDICAL REVIEW BOARD OF NEW Y01:I' £TATC, AND MR. SUNDRAM, TU3E CHICF COMMISSIONfF< Cir T11E Qt1AL I TY OF CARE, CALLED A PRE35 CONP'ERENCC AND 1 t1 ASf;CD ME TO ATTEND. THAT'S THE t1NLY ONE I EVER 11 ATTENDED. 12 ~ G? WHAT YCAR WAO 'THAT? I DON' T KNOW I F YOU SA I D Tf S:,T . i^ + I MAY I-IAVf MICSCD IT. 14 A FF;OFALsI.Y F I VE YEARS AGn. 1 S I Q W14AT WA '_' TILC NATURE Uf' THE F RES : CONFERENCF^ 1C• I A IT WAS ALLEGED IDY A PATHOLOGIST THAT MENTAL FAT1CNT:'. 17 ~ WERE BE I NG SO DRUOGED I N ONE MENTAI. Hn zP I TtiL 114 NCi•i 16 YORK STATE THAT THEY WERE UNAELC TO BREATHE AND 19 SWALLOW AND THEY DIED OF ASPIRATION PNEUMONIA. THT"• 20 COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY QUITE A THOROUGH 21 INVESTIGATION. MR. SUNDRAM WANTED TO KNOW -- WANTC71 22 THE PUF.L I C TO KNOW THAT THE ALLEGAT I ONS WERE W I THCl;_'T 23 SIJDCTANT I AT I ON. 24 ; C? WHAT AF:OIIT ANY F'F:Css CONF'ERCNCCC RCC-ARDING Tl1C ~ ^~ SMOt-' I NC. ANtl HEALTH 1 I:: SIJC? HAVE YOU CVCR AFf- Z::.^[7i, i. . DCAUu1Or:T Cr1i_iRT rE'mrTC'RC: CTR HN 014846

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 1985 NUN•DISSEMINAiION ORDER CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. IN ROGERS AND D, UKE CASES. I 2 3 4 IK i 6 ~ 0 4 10 11 12 C J I 4 ~ 1" j it• !. 17 I 18 I ~ 19 20 21 22 23 ?~ AT ANY :UCH CONFERENCC' A NOT A PF.ESS CONFERENCE. Q SOMCTHINO SIMILAR TO A PRESS CONFERENCE^ MR. RAYHILLj WHAT I+0 YOU MEAN BY "SOMETHINC• SIMILAR TO A PRESS CONFERENCC"^ MR. HAM:C01 I PON' T KNOW. THE ANSWCr; W"Aj^ rrir.a= "NOT A PRESS CONFERENCC." I'M WONDrf;INO 1f IT WAS ANYT/flNr SIMILAR. I MR. RAY1IILL= I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MCAt1 FY "S I.MILAF: TO A PRCSSO CONFCRENCE. " MR. HANF'?= LET' S 3EC If' HE CAN MNc.WE^. A I t+ON ' T UNLICROTAND TF IZ Q0E'.'•.:T I ON. Q YOU BR I EFL1' DESCR 1 BED YOUR DUT I ES A3 SC I ENT IFI C DIRECTnR. WHAT ARE YOUR ACTIVITIES? HOW DO Y11A CARRY OUT YOUR DUTIES? A I FZCAta AS MUCH or THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, ESrCCIALLY IN MY FIELD OF PATHOLOGY. AS I CAN MANAGE. I MEET W I TH TF IE ISTAFr OF C. T. R. REGUL At•ti_ 1' SO THAT I CAN HEAR WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN TF1CIR F I CLD S CF' WORK. I ATTEND A CERTA I N NtwDER ar CONVENTIONS AND MECTINGS IN ORDER TO KEEP MY^EL.r• ur• WI TH TItC F'IELD. AND I TRY TCt FIND INfaCATI0w: Fr•,cir, Tt CC L I TERATi.r,:;- AND FROM RER S4NAL CONVEROAT Tnri-• or C•CalAtON' c nLIR7 f•C'~ .~1 \'CC r V { R Hi \ 014847

THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT T0 AUG. 20, 1985 NUN•OISSE'diNA1IUN ORDER IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. THIS 'DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. I PROJC""TG THAT WC MIGI4T BE INTCRE 3T ED IN S UL'ROTTI NC,. 2 0 AG AN S.A.D. MEMBER. I ASSUME YO U ATTEND ALL OF THr 3 0 J.A.B. MCCTINOO? 4 A YES. J 0 THE SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR. IF HE W ER E NOT A N S.A.£ . 6 MEMBFR. WrJJ1LD HE ATTEND THOSE ME ET INGS AL Sn^ C 7 0 Mr. RAYHILL: OBJECTIO N. I THI NF' THAT 9 CAI_LC ron PURC SPECULATION. 10 1 1 V C`i MF:. I 1AN1: O: ~ ~ 12 ~ 0 FEf'oRr YOU BECAME CC I ENT I F 1 C: D I R EC TOP C>< C. T. F' .. C 1^ DID IT~~ ^CICNTIEIc DIL:CCTon, AT T IiA T TIMC ATT!-t:r; T{I" 14 :•.:,. t. M('CT ING:^•^: I ~ 1~ ' ` A vCC.. ` 14. 0 WI 1O WA :: Tl lf C C I ENT I F I C D I RECTOR BE PORE YOIi^ 17 I 1 A WILLIAM GARDNER or YALC, G-A-R-D -N -E-R. 1S 0 WAS HE TFIC SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR I N 19E•7? C • 19 A NO. 20 0 WHO WAS THE SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR TH EN? 21 A DR. CLARENCE C. LITTLE. 2? ~ G! BETWEFN LtiF:. L I TTLE AND DR. GARDN ER THERE WERC Nl: , 23 1 nTHFR^^ 24 ' A TIICrt' WCPG NO, ClTIiF.Ft :CICNTTFiC D IR CCTOR:. 0. A^C `; 3u rAP1I L I Af: TO AF:Y EXTENT W I T l l THE II I^_•TO1':Y O;' I CCAlR1ONT CCUuf,:T RErt-iF' 1.., TR t t l''t 01"'I' B`°t B

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTiALITY AGREEMENT. IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. 1 THE C.T.R.? 2 3 1'1R. RAYHILLI I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN 4 BY "TO ANY EXTENT ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY 5 or TFIC C. T. R. " WHY DON' T YOU JUST A%: H I M A 6 QUF•STION. 7 G ! F1' MR. IIANk:w1 9 0 ARC YOU FAMILIAR WIT/i T}IC MICTHOD pY WHICIi THC" 10 ; ORIGINAL SCICNTIFIC ADVISOf:Y BOARD WA; r.HOC[U" 11 ' A NO. ~ 12 ' 0 ARE YCa.i FAMILIAR WITH THE METHOD BY WHICH THC 13 nRIGINAL SCIENTITIC DIRfCTOR WAS CHOSEN^ 14 A NO. 1 0 DOES C.T.R. HAVE A LAW COMMITTEE^ IG A NOT THAT I KNOW AF. 17 i ' 6! FIAVC YOU EVER HEARD or THCRC f.:CINC A LAW COPIMITTt': 10 1 AT ANY TIME? 19 I A I NCVER HCARD THAT F'HF2ASC. ! 20 I 0 AS. I UNDCRSTAND IT, C.T.R. WA3 INCORPORATED IN 1971? 21 ! IS THAT CORRECT? 22 A I DON'T KNOW. 23, 0 IT'S A CORPORATION NOW, ISN'T IT? 24 A I T' C A NOT-•TCR-PROt' I T ORRAN I tAT I ON. LiCi['s I T F~AVC A ROARfl or n I RECTOF;^^ L~~A .!M41:T t_ tlt iR T F'CF`Oi?TE^" CTR HN 014849

l THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 21, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 2 4 I 2 A 0 YE,. DO YOU KNOW THE MEMEERS OF THE CURRENT 90ARS Oi" 3 DIRECTORS? 4 A NO. R G ~ Q A WHAT I MEAN 131 DO YOU KNOW ANY OF THEM? I'VE SIIAKEN HAND3 WITH A NUMBER or PEOPLE. SOMC Or WHOM AP:C PROBABLY D I RECTORS, BUT I DON' T KNGW WI I 7 CI : F S 14 a ARC. DOCC C. T. R. AT THE F'RESENT HAVE A t'UDL IC RELAT I ON-':. CON3IJLTANT? , 11 A YE^. i 1': 0 WHO I': THAT? 1^ A ItIS NAME I^ LEONARD ZAF;t3, Z-A-FI-N. 14 C! DO YOU KNOW 114W LONC HE'S BEEN THE I`tJLtL I C l:EL?,T I;',I4'. 1~ CON:.ULTANT TO C. T. F. ? 1h A NO. 17 C) WAS HC THE PUBLIC RELATIONS CONSULTANT IN 1^G,'"' 10. I 19 MR. RAYHILLs MAYDE AT THIS POINT 1'01.i 20 OUGHT TO DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "PU9LIC RCLATION1. 21 CONSULTANT." ..., i 1 :.^•• A I DON'T I:NOW. C! WILAT tiCTIt,'ITIC^ DOEC MR. TAHN ENCACE IN ON EEF,AI.r • 1r Or C.T.R.' E{EAUNGtJT C0lJr%T RErOrTER:: CTR HN 014,B50

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1995 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN Ir AND DUKE CASES. I THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. A MR. ZAHN HCLf',^, TO FRCPARC TfIC ANNUAL REPORT. 0 DOC; NF. DO ANYTHING ELSE? A HC ATTEND: MEETINGS IN THE UNITED STATES AND 4 S 6 A 7 E: A ~ 10 11 ; A ~ r l i 1? ' n 1 ~ ~ 14 F; i C~ ~ 0 17 ' I 10 ' L 1? j ^f1 ~ ' 21 ! A 22 i 0 A 2a r.., ~~ A ELSEWHERE, AND HE REPORTS ON SPEECHES GSVEN.ANP POSTER3 SHOWN AT VARIOUS SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS. OGES FiE ATTEND THESE MEETINGS AT RANDOM? NO, NOT AT RANDOM. THEY ARE CHOSEN AS THOSE MO^T I NTCREST I NO MCET I NG^ I N TERMS. OP SMOF; I NG AND aIEALTI l RE SEARCH. • WHO CHOO^E S T! fC MCCT I NG; ^ HE DOC 11. tIAVC YOU EVEi' cUCGC•:•TCn ANl' MEETINGS TO HIM THIAT H-1 3I I0ULD ATTCNCI'' oNCC. n0 YoU K.NCfW I F ANYONE ELSE HAS SUGGCGTCD ANY TO MR. RAYHILL t ANY SCICNTIrIC MECTING:. TO MR. ZANN? MR. HANKS= YE£. I DON ' T K.NOW. DOCS !tE FRCFAfiC A REPORT ABOUT THESE MCCTING: ^ YES, . riCl VOLI RCCC I VE A CDrY? YE=. L-c:,IJrUONT C'(11lr-: T F:E'rOr TCi::. CTR 11N 014BEil

1 2 3 4 5 6 c 7 C: 9 ~ 1G ~ i i 12 C r i S iJ iG 1". !A 19 20 21 22 THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 1985 NUN•DISSEMINATION ORDER CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. IN ROGERS AND UKF CASES , A DO THE OTHER MEM3ERs or TNE SC I ENT I F I C STAF-F REC-[ I': r A COPY? I BELIEVE SO. A DO THE S.A.B. MEMBERS RECEIVE A COPY? A I DO NOT THINK SO. R DO TIit MEMDEF2 COMPANIES OF THE C.T.R. RECEIV[ A C4rY^ A 1 DON"T KNOW. G DO YOU KNOW WHET11ECc LEONARD ZAHN WAS FoFMEnL'~ ~ A ASSOCIATED WITI-1 A FIRM DY THE NAME OF HILL & KN41JLTnt•:'' NO. i f! FIAVE YOU EVER HEARD or HILL & KNOWLTON^ I A I'VE HCARD TIIE NAMC. r! WF{C:T DO THEY DO? l A I CAN' T ACCURATELY TCI.L YOU. n OTHER THAN HELPING WITH THE PRFPARATION or TIir A ANNUAI. REPORTS AND ATTENDINO SCIENTIrIC MECTINr,`'• iN THE UN I TED STATES AND OTHER COUNTR I E S. WHAT El S[ DOES MR. ZAHN DO FOR TI4C C. T. R. ? HE ATTENDS THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOACD MCETING^ I AS AN OBSERVER. HE PRESENTS A DRIEF REPORT AT TFIC DOARD OP DIRECTORS MEETINOS. HE SOMETIMES CLIPS Ai:T ICLE3 FROM NEWSPAPERS OR JOURNALS WH I CI4 HE TIIINI:S WOULD DE OF INTcr.EST. 0 I S THAT TT"" ' A Tri THE CE".T C+r MY 1'NOWLEDGE. EEfiUMCQJT C b'!RT REF`0^Ti:R'. CTR HN 014852

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND KF CASES. i 2 C~ 3 A 4 0 S 6 A A 7 ~ A 0 ~ 0 9 ' A 1U I C! ( 11 ' i i~ f: I A O 14 1~ ~ ~ 16 1, A 17 I 0 J 11' 1S I y 20 I~ ; A ( 2d. ' 23 0 T 4 ~~ A THIS OOCUMF.NT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. DR. 3,ONMi:R::, HAVE Y0_JJ EVER HEARL or A PUDLICATIOr; THAT'S CALLCD "TODACCO AND HEALTH"? NO. WFIAT ABOUT "CURRENT DI4CST." HAVE YOU HEARD or THAT' 1'ES. I^ THAT A C.T.R. PRODUCT? YEC:. IS THAT STILL BCING i'RODUCCD TODAY BY THC C'. T. F',. ^ MONT{1LY. YES. MONTtILY? WA.:• THAT PRODUCED BACK IN 1967 NFlEh Vrll.: BECAMC AN 3.A.C. MCMDER? I nON' T IfNOLJ. A~: ^CICNTIrIC DIP:r.CTOr%• hO YOU HAVE A FtOI.C IN rnRMUI_AT I NC+ THE ARCA3 or RESCARCH I N WH I CI 1r. T. r: . IS INTCRECTCD IN PROVIDING FUNDS? NOT SPECIFICALLY iN FOI:MULATINO THCM. 6440 WOUL[1 FORMULATL THAT? MR. RAYHILLI IF ANYONE. I'DON'T DCLIEVC THERE IS ANYONC THAT PORMULATE^ Ti;: rIELDSO or RESEARCH. WHAT IS EXACTLY THE ROLE or THE £CIENTIrIC ADVI"nr'. BOAr:P AT C. T. R . ? wI irN ACrL I CAT I ONS ARE MADE F oF: f;ESEAi:CH C:R:,NT rurz.'•. CCAl!r10NT COI~ ~T R`f'nRTCF::~ CTR HN 014'853

I 2 3 4 J E• 7 f 9 10 11 12 13 14 1s 14. 17 ia 19 20 21 22 , THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•Di3SEhtINATION ORDER 1N RO_ GERS AND UQ~K CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SURIECT TO „_ CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. ~ THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD IN SUDCOMMITTEES or THREE OR FOUR REVIEWS EACH APPLICATION AND EACH MEMBER WRITES A CRITIQUE AND AT THE MEETINOS WHERE GRANTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. THERE IS A CALL BY THE CHAIRMAN FOR THE PRESENTATION IN ORDER OF THE APPLICATIONS AND AS EACH ONE IS CALLCD FOR DISCUC'SIOt:- T114 SUBCOMMITTEE RCADS THE CRITIQUCS. T1IEN TNrr.- I1 GCNCRAL DISCUSSION. THEN TIKRE IS A VOTC TO ACi':E'f•T OR NOT ACCEPT THE APPL I CAT I ON FOR FUND I NG. I i* TF1:' VOTE I:: TO DISCOURAGE OR NOT TO ACCErT, THEN TFI::T T11C END O.P THAT APPL I CAT I ON S PROGRES S THROUGI 1 C. T. R. I F TItC GRANT I S APF'ROVED, THEN TNERf. I S A RAT I N~ : r'v' 1 ND I V I DUAL3 ON A nN~ -T4- ~ I VC ^CALE FROM ^;,TRQN~: ,''•T TO WCAI:E^T. TIIESE ARE COLLATED. THOSC AEcC T1IC FUNCTION.^_. OF THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD AT T11~ GRANT MCfTINGS. C! LET MC STOP YOU POf: A M I NUTE . THE RAT I NG THAT 1'0U MENTIONED, IS TI4AT A RATING DY THE S.A.B. MEMBERS ~ MR. RAYHILLt or THE PROJECT? MR. HANKS$ YE0, . A EACII MEMDGR Ctt' THE SCIfNTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD RATE^• CAC11 A^^f:OVCU GRANT ON A SCALE 0"' ONE TO F Iv,-:. . 0 AE;C TI SCF;C SOME CU I Lf l I NE^ RCLAT I NC TO TF I I:' F:AT I N1'. DCA! R1ONT Gl.1! IrtT RCrORTER=~ CTR HN 014B54

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN R RS AND DUKE CASES. I 0 YS T~tt ;` TH1S DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 2 A TIIAT nNC IS THE HIGHEST rRIORITY AND FIVE THE LOWC^T 3 PRIORITY FOR FUNDING BASED ON SCIENTIFIC MERIT. 4 a ARE THERE SOME WRITTEN OUIDELINES THAT HAVE BE[N 5 PREPARED? 6 ~ A NO. C 7 0 ti'011 SA I D THE CR I T I QUES WERE READ AT THE MEET I NG: .. C I I TAkC IT EACH CRITIQUE IS IN WRITING? 4 ~ A YCs.. ' G 10 j C! %TIiC CRITIQUC;+ WHAT IS THfIR ULTIMATE DE^_.TINATION 11 ~ AFTEP THE"I'VE BEEN READ AT THF. MECTING.^,^ G l^.• ~ A TFIEIR ULTIMATf D[STINATION IS ON TIiC rART or OTFtCI' MCt1I3ER''• TO LEAVE TFICM BCt-1IND IN TIic MCCTIN S ROOt1, 14 ~ r1taT, TFiC1' ARE DIsP`03EL or. 1S R YOU MEAN YOU DON'T KEEP THE CRITIQUES^ k I E• I ; A I. THE SC I ENT I F I C DI RCCTOt: + KCEP THCM FOF: A PEF:1 Ut' 17 l or MUNTIIS, DURING W1IICII AN APPLICANT WHO WAS NOT if AWAMCD FUNDS MAY CALL UP OR WRITE AND ASK TFIE 19 F3AaIS FOR TIiI3. SO. I WILL QUOTE FROM THE CRITIQU'':. 20 ' AFTEi: A FCW MONTHS, I DISCARD THEM. 21 Q WI4AT ABOUT THE PROJECTD THAT ARC FUNDED? AS:C TNC 22 CRITIQUES or THOSE PROJECTS KEPT DY C.T.R.? 23 A I TIiI NI .: TI IE ARRANOEMENT 13 THE SAME A 1 FOR TI !O^.•C . 4 I AF`(`L I CAT I ON^ THAT ARC D I SAF'PF;nVER. 25 6? LET' S A.:-~'?IJMC THAT Ti4C S. A. D. HAS OI VEN A t'A'J0^A»l_C DCAUt1ONT COUt'cT FEF`0(:TERr. E_.. E R [ F t"'E 014855

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT T0 AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN R ERS AND DUKE CASES. I 2 3 4 S 6 7 F 9 16 THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. RAT ING TO A PART I CULAR APPL I CAT I ON. Wi4AT FiAf,f'CN:. NEXT? A TIiE STArF MEETS AFTER THE END OF THE MEETINGt AND THE AVFRAGED RATINOS ARE AVAILABLE. USUALLY LISTED FROM THE ABSOLUTE BCST 1.0 DOWN TO THE LOWEST. SEaIDE TIIAT. THE AMOUNTS REGUI;TCD ARC LIaTEDi ANC+ Tllt•' ST.:r•F, INCLUDING THE RESEARCH DIRECTOR AND TIiC SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOf:. LOOfLS AT THIS LISTING ANfi DCCISION: ABOUT TH[ FUNDING. 0 It' THE STAFt' DECIDES IT DCC-•^: NOT WANT TO FUND A 11 I F ROJCCT TIiMT HAS RECE I VED A FAVORABLE RAT I NG PY THE ~ 12 S. A. D. + I: THE STAFF ENTITLED TO REJECT THE PRn~I.-CT^ 1S A NO.- I ] 4 ; 0 I:• TII[ CCIE'NTIrIC DIRECTOR ENTITLED TO REJECT 1° 1 C• 17 10 li 20 21 23 FUNDINr" A NO. 0 no, 1 E Tl lf S. A. Fc. G I VES A t'AVO<<ABL.E RAT I Nr , TI ir:? PRO.JCrT W I LL BE rUNDED? A YES. Q HOW ARE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS HANDLED DY THE S.A.E.' A MANY APPLICANTS REQUEST MORE THAN ONE YEAR - UP TO A MAX IMIIM Ot' THREE - AND AT THE END OF EACI1 YEAR, T11CY ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN PROORESS 24 ' RCF'OF'T. £ASCtj UPON T1IAT ANfl THC COMMENTS OF TNC ~': ^l~D'>>MPSITTFC THAT WERE ORIGINALLY AGCIGNED TO THAT rCALIrtM:T r_:OUf:T RCrQi:TEf'': CTR HN 014856

G 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 Q 9 10 I 1 / 12 13 14 1! 16 17 iC 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 2'! TH IS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 1995 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. Z. 1 IN ROGERS AND PUK CASES Q A 0 , APPLIGATION, THE SECOND OR - IF THCRC I'l A THIRD REQUESTED - THE THIRD RENEWAL YEAR IS APPRO',rCP ADMINISTRATIVELY. "THC EAJDCOIIMITTEE." BY THAT YOU MEAN THE EUDCOMMITTCC Of' THC S.A.D.? YE•^.. Dn MEMCCF:S OI' THC S.A.O. VISIT AT TNC ZITC WITH T1;r i A I NVCiT I C+ATOR03? EVERY 1'EAF: £OMC MEMBERS DO MGrT WITH SQME INVC':TIGATnRS+ YES. 0 [{UT TFIf ti' DO NO T MEET WITIi ALL OT THEM? j A 0;1, N(7.. ~ 0 FInW I:^• IT DCC:IDCG WHICH ONC^ T111'Y'LL MCCT WITH'• ~ A A C I TC. V I•^_• I T 114 THE F I ELD OC CARD I OLOGY W6UL D I ~ IN~7LUDC THE MEMBER OR MCMEcERS OF THE fIOARD WHO•^•r FICLDS ARZ CARDIOLOGY. IF IT WERE A PRODLEM IN , CI IRONi C rULMONARY DI SEA: C, TI iC BOARC MCMDCr OR I MEMBERS MOST EXPERT IN THAT FIELD WOULD VISIT AND 0 SO ON. MY QUCSTION. THOUCiH+ IS= HOW IS IT DETERMINED I i A WHICII INVCSTIOATORS TO VISIT. NOT 4fHIC1l DOARD MCMBEf:S DO THE VISITING? TIIC CITAFt' DOCTORS APPROXIMATELY EVERY YEAR OR EIGHTCE1. MONTHS WILL TRY TO ISITC VI~IT CVCF;Y INVC^TIOATOCc. THEY MAY 00 ALONE. TfiCY MA'i 9:-0 WIT1t E;CAUMr.irJT r_.0i iRT RCCOC;TEP~'-.• [... TR l t1 "t 014C7s 5=•f

C C. C C i / 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 A THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DIaSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND DK CASE.S. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. ANOTHER STAF!' MEMQCR. AND THEY MAY INVITE ONC OR MORE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS. 110W IS IT DECIDED? IT 13 DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF TRYINO TO HELP TFiC INVESTIOATOR. TO TRY AND EVALUATE HOW MUCH PROORESS FiAS BEEN MADE, AND TO TRY AND INSURE THAT THC MONCY I S BE I NO PROPERLY SF`[NT. 0 A,^•. SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, WOULD YOU FROM TIMC TO TIM^ MAKE :ITE VICITS'' ? I A I DO. . i 10 ( Q ARC E.UOCES T I ONS EVER MADE BY Tti[ C. T, r. : TAt'F Oi: I 11 THE S.A.D. ON THESE SITE VISITS A-_ TO HOW TH7 1: RESEAnGIa COULD BE I MF'RCe.PED^ 13 i A WC ATTCMf'T TO AS SI S-T THE INVCS2TIGATOR : AT TFIE T IFt,= 14 0r •^.ITE VISITS. i C. A. t. 15 0 YOU MCNT I ONED THAT THERE WERE MEMEEf S or Ti .E 1C. W1T11 EXrCRTISE IN PARTICULAR AREAS'. WI10 ON TH-L 17 s. A. D. RICFIT NOW WOULD BE YOUrt EXrERTS IN CARDIOL01-,'," 13 A DR. RICHARD BINOe SECONDLY. DR. LEON JACOBSON. 19 Q HOW ABOUT I N CHRON I C PULMONARY L1I SEA SE^r 20 21 22 24 MR. RAYHILLI LET ME JUST HAVE A STANDING OBJECTION TO AREAS OUTSIDE THE PLEADINt3S SUCH AS YOU"RE ASkINC ABOUT NOW, CAFtDIOLOCY, Pl4.PfONARY DI :GA^••Cr. MR. HANI:;•t OI'AY. GCA~Jr1+;~r;~ CnUr..T R,-7i -rTC^Tl CTR HN 01485B

i . THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT T0 AUG. 20, i 1985 NON-DISSEMINATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO C4NFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. ~ I IN ~,S AH/ j~( CASES. I 2 3 THC WITNE.S.3$ (ADDRE3SING COUNSEL) I ANSWCR THC QUESTION? MR. RAYIIILL= YES. ,^.1 i.a.l- 4 Z A CtR. CtE:UMMOND BOWDEN AND MYSELF. G 0 30, YOU'RE AN EXPCRT IN CHRONIC PULMONARY DISEA.^:•E—: 7 A I'M A GENERAL PATHOLOGIsT WITH SPCCIAL INTERECT 1N 6 CHRONIC PULMnNARY DISEA3C. 9 0 WHO WOULD 8C THE S. A. B. ' S EXPERTS I N THE F I CLO or 10 CANGCf? ` i 11 I A THCY WOULD INCLUDE DR. MICHAEL FRENNAN. THEY WOhl.r; C INCI.UnC Df:. JO'3CPH FCLDMAN, DR. HENRY LYNG11, DR. G0r:i;Or. CC,TO, DR. WILLIAM GARt44Ci:. 14 1 0 4TIir_r( THAN TI(CSC :PCCIALTIE'> Tt1:.T I'VC Aaie.t:L %,u.t AtiOUT. ARC" T1 IERE ANY OTHER SPCC I ALT i ES THAT Ar:c 14 17 le 19 RCf-`nESCtJTCD ON THE BOARD? MR. RAYHILLt TODAY, CURRENTLY? MR. HANKS$ YE3. 20 21 A YC£•. DR. JOSEPH FELDMAN IS THE EDITOR CoF "THE 22 JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY." S0. HE'S AN IMMUNOLOGIST. 2^ DR. LEON JACOB::ON IS A HEMATOLOGIST AI: WCI.L AC AN ?4 iNTI:RNI':?. WC HA4'E DR. MANrRCLi I:ARNr.iV^I'1', WI(G IS A rRnFEssnC r-sr DCAl1t1ONT CN.M,.T RcFORTER; CTR HN 014859

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 1985 NON • DISSEMiNATION ORDER CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. IN R06ERS AND t K CASES. 1 1 aI4CHEMISTS;Y. DJ:. MICHAEL BRCNNAN I3 A CLINICAL 2 I ONCOLOCIST AS WCLL AS A RESEARCHER IN CANCER. DP;. 1 3 I BARRY PIERCC IS A SCHOLAR IN CELL BIOLOGY. DR. 4 I PETER HOWLEY IS A CANCER VIROLOGIST. DR. GORDON 3 SATO IS AN EXPCRT IN TISSUE CULTURC. 6 0 HOW MANY MEMf3CRS ARE THERE ON THE T.. A. B. TODAY? 7 8 MR. RAYHILLe (ADDRE:'SINC WITNESS) 1•1AVE 7 Y0u F I N ISHCD YOUR ANSWER? 10 TI iC W I TNCSSs I I1 I DN ' 1' ctLlAL i rY MYSCLF i li . , BECAI i::~ I T; inUr,HT I T WAS UNUCCC': ^Ar,Y. Jl- A Tlirf'C ArC TWELVE MEMDCF:S. 14 I 0 WHAT AL4n! IT I N T{i.-. F I ELD OF F SYCIi I ATRY^ IS F.'.YC I i I H TI':'i 1' I RCi'REEENTCD ON THE S. A. B. ? 16 i A No. 17 I 0 110W AFk.11.1T F'SYCHOLOOY? 1t3 A NO. 19 A DOCS• TMC C.T.R. EVER SEEK THC ADVICE PRCIM ANYONE 20 OTFIER TI1AN THE S.A.B. MEMC+CRS WITH RESPECT TO TIfC 21 rUNDINC OF RESEARCH? 22 A YES. A. i Q WOULD YOU TELL. MC AS MANY A: YOU CAN THE PEOrLf 24 TtiCY 2r A CC'RTA I N ArP'L I CAT I ONC ARC SO ADVANCED AND i ;:C!,I IH; ~;~? C')UFT R''rnr;Tt'r,". CTR HN 014860

` THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON • DISSEMINATION ORDER IN RDGERS AND UKE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. t SPCCIALIZCLl THAT MEMBCRS or THE SCIENTIFIC AD'dI34RY 2 I BOARD AS::IGNED TO THAT DON'T FEEL ENTIRELY L l 3 I COMrORTADLE IN REVIEWINO THEM. SO, AD HOC OUTSIDC 4 REVIEWCF: ARE REQUESTED/ AND IF THEY ARE WILLING, 5 TIIEY ARE SCNT A CONFIDENTIAL APPLICATICMI. AND TIiEY E. REPORT IN WRITING. THERE ARE PRODABLY FORTY On 7 FIi'TY OF THCSC PEOPLE. AND MANY or Tt4EM MAY ONLY PJ G I T ONCE OR TW I CE SO THAT I T' S HARG FOR MC TO 011 .-[ ~ S~ YOU A VCRY EXTENSIVE LISTINO 01' THE OUTSIDE . 10 ~ CONSUL TANTC. 11 i A THAT' :: 1' I NI' . I WA :' I NTERESTCD I N A CENERAL I DEA . ~ 12 ~ I D I DN' T ML"AN FOR YOU TO TELL ME Tf i[ I r NAME S. DOf : 1"~ ' C'. T. f:. ' ~ MCrtCcr. Cod1rANIe'^ EVCt; :'u.';CZ^T L INf'.^_• nr 14 ~ R[~[ARr.:; ~ TO TI IC C. T. R. ? 1 ~ i A (ADDRCS;..I WC COUF:T REFOt:TER ) WOULD 1'OU f<CAD BACt' 14, ~ TFIC QUE'~TIOtJ^ 17 L ~ 1F i REPORTCR'£ NOTES WHEI;EUPON THE FOLLOWINi-: 1? ` QUESTION WAS READ BACK BY THC COURT RFPnnT"': 20 21 22 i "QUESTIONt DOES C.T.R.'S MEMBER COMPANIES Evr.r SU0GEST LINES OF RESEARCH TO THC C.T.F't.?" :'4 A NO. ~~ C! WI I:.T A[;nUT THf: I NDU.^-.TRY TCCHN I C-AL COMM I TTFC "' At'cs= [irq~ ~h1C1NT CGURT t:rF'O^T~R". CTR t tN 014'661

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 Nuri-U,SSEhbnAtIUN ORDER IN R GER~ AND U( CASES, THIS DOCUMENT SURIECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. I 2 3 4 I:- 6 7 A Q A THEY EVER CONSULTED REGAZDING LINES' or RESCA.^%Cli? NO. ARE THE'Y EVER CONSULTED ABOUT ANYTHING'% A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INDUSTRY TECIINICAL COMMITTEE MAY BE ASKED FOR TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE Or TOBACCO OR SOME ASPECT OF TOBACCO WHICH NONC OF THE MEMDER£ Or TI-!C :•CIENTIrIC ADVISORY BOFiRD I:NOW. a O THE INDU3TRY TECHNICAL COMMI TTEE IS COIlFOSC[+ or ^ ~ A EMPLOYCES tu' C I GARETTE MANUF I BCL.IEVC :O. ACTLN2ERS^ 11 I ~ 0 DOES THC CG. T. r:. CUra;CNTLY HA VC A,^.G I CNT I r I C L. I PR:,r;l'^ 12 A YE^ ~ . 1S' ~ 0 I IA'JC YOU Cvr_ r I Ir-Arn Ctr TNE L I TCRATURC rCTr I r','.1;. 14 :, DIVISION'` 1 5 I 1 A NO. 16 1 n YOU HAVE NEV ER FICARD or THAT ? 17 I I A LITERATURE R i:TI?ICVAL DIVISIO N? NO. 1 c, ~ A DO YOU I;NnW MR. FRCD GILLER^ 19 A NO. 20 0 YCUJ' VC NEVER F ICARD OF MR. PR ED G I LLER? 21 A I BELIEVE IN MR. GERTENBACH' S DEPOSITION HE WAS 22 ASKED ADOUT MR. GILLER, AND THAT'S THE ONLY TIMC ?Q L J I C: THAT THE NAM MR. GCf:TCNCA L.:.. INC. C HA S COME UF'. "'1,* MCNTIONED AN HA'J^ YOU EVER HE Cq:CAtJIZATION CALLER ARD Cor THAT^: P('AUP1Cjr:T Cr,uRT r `•.cr•ciF?TCr;:. CTR HN 014662

THIS DOCUMENT SUBlECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN•DISSEMiNATION ORDER IN R ERS AND DUKE CASES, THIS DOCUMENT SlIB1ECT TO GQNFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 1 MR. RAYHILLs OBJECTION TO QUOTING FROrt 2 MF.. GERTENBACH'S DEPOSITION. YOU CAN ASK HIM THC 3 I SAME QUESTION STRAIGHT OUT. 4 s BY Mr. HANKS1 E• 0 HAVE YOU EVCR HEARD or L.S.. INC.? 7 A WELL., I READ MR. OERTENBACH' S DEP4S I T I GN I N WF1I C t l C ~ THOSE INITIALS OCCURF2ED, AND THAT'S THE OtdLY F'LAC.E 9 ~ I EVER NCARD OF IT. . 10 C. AS SC I ENT I F I C D I F;EC TOR+ DO YOU F'LAY ANY F:OL.C I N THC i 11 ~ BUDGET PROCESS WIT14 C.T.R.? i 1d- I A NO, IWN'T ESTABL.I SH THE BUDGET. 1? 0 W11r, DOE ; THAT^ 14 A I BELICVF. THAT'^ TIiC RESPONSIfILITY or TIT r.11AIrrt.;r4, 1° MR. FICIBDS. 14, 0 HOW LONC HAS MR. HOEBS BEEN THE CltAIi:MAN?' 17 ~ A MY MCMCIR'l I: f" I Vr OR -I X YCAR3. 1C ! Q DO YOU KNOW.WHCRE Mr. HOBBS LIVES? 19 `~ A SOMEWIIERC IN NORTIi CAFcOLINA, I THINK. 20 0 HAVE YOU HAD ANY D I SCUSS I ONS W I TH MR. I IG+DD^ W I Th I rd 21 THE LAST MONTH? 22 A YES. 2? C~ DOES MR. H4DD^ 00 E'Y THE C. T. R. OFFICE.^-. ON A RECUL A'' -2 4 OAS I^" .,~ E,CA! IMC,r4T r_:Cllff;T C:CPCQ;T[r:'• L. l R t tt't 01"t' BG3

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT T0 AUG. 20, 1685 NON•DISSE~AINAiION ORDER IN ERS AND DUK CASES. I 2 3 4 f THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO dBMFIDENtIA61Tr AGREEMENT. MR. RAYHTLLt WiAT DO YOU MEFd4 6•i "R(:r,ULA(^""..' MR. HANi:St IT COULD BE YEARLY. IF 14E WENT BY EVERY YEAR, THAT WOULD BE REOULAR. IF Nr- WENT BY EVERY MONTH. THAT 4pUlD BE REGULAR. J E• BY MR. HANKSt 7 Q HOW OF'TEN DOE'S Mf;. HOdRS GO BY THE C. T. R. O F'r I C rv'• g I 9 I A C~ I SUPPOSE EIGHT OR TEN TIMES A YEAR. IlOW LONG HAS YOUR SCIENTIFIC LIBRARY BEEN I N • I 3T N ? 10 I 11 4 A EXI E CC I T CX ICTED WI ICN I r I F`^T BCCAPiC A MCMBER or Tt•i~: / 12 ~ 0 WHAT'S CONTAINCD IN IT^. • 1: ~ A £UEtSCF:I PT I ON S TO A NLIMCCR C1i" 3C I C:NT I r I C ANi hC C • I cr.t I 14 ` JOURNALS. STANDARD TCXTD404~^, DIGE3TS W=41r.; { LI^ T 15 I THE NAME£ Or AMCi;ICAN AND BRITISH SCIENTIST S, ~ 1G I MEDICAL AND GENERAL DICTIONARIEG+ AND A FGL DCr, FOr•' 17 i THE RE-PRINTS or THC PUDLICATIONS or EAC1f G RANT CC. 10 I 0 WF10•DETERMINES WHAT 13 SUB3CRIDED TO OR PL ACCD IN C 19 THE LIBRARY? 20 A USUALLY THE LIBRARIAN. .~~ 21 C YOU SAID "£TANDARD TEXTB10K5. " STANDARD T EXTB O01•':; 22 ON WHAT? 23 A INTERNAL MCDICINC, PATH4LCiG1'. BIOCHEMISTRI' + ?a f'l1ARMACOLnCs.,:QMC. RELATCD SUB•1ECT3. 2s ~ 0 WI iAT WOULD E:C A CTANDARD TCX.TRQoy FOF2 I NTE RNAL r_.oUr•.T r,rr _~;:~s ^ _ [.x t R t tN 0.t "1" BG`Y

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN•UISSE.+tINANON ORDER 1N RD~G,ERS AND oUKE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. MEDICINE? 2 I A I LIICE THE LOOSE-LEAF ONE FROM "SCIENTIFIC AMErICAN 3 MEDICINE." 4 Q WHEN WAS THAT PUBLISHED? S A IT'S A LOOSE-LEAF, AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT BEGAN. 6 0 IS IT UPDATED REGULARLY? . 7 A YCS. C 9 I ~ C! 4di1:,T ABOUT ron PATNOI.OGY. MtAT'S THE STANDAf'Tl TCXTBOOF: IN PATltOLOGY? 10 ~ A t'oE:.C•ENCRAL PATFtOLC1GY AT THE F'ROFESSIONAL LEVrL+ 11 ~ TI1_ TEXTBOOF: oF ANDERSC~N I,ra CONSIDERED STANCtiARD. r 1? ~ C4 WHO HAC ACCCS: TO YOUr% ^CIENTIPIC LIBRARY^ ~ I 13 A THC .^-•TAf'f", THC RCGEARr;I AND SCIENTIFIC DIC:CC_TC-1r,"';. 14 TF ir L I BRAR I AN;.i AND A'; I MENT I ONCL. ON REOt.tC'•T.: 1 ~ RE ••PR I NT CAN DC PROV I DED or ANY aRANTEC' •^_• 16 I f'LIDL. I CAT I ON TO ANYONE Rt'QUEST I NG I T. ! 7 ` 0 WI IAT ABOUT THE S. A. B. MEMDERS^ DO T1 iEV H:.V: 1Z '• TO IT? ~ ~ 19 A TIIEY CAN PHYSICALLY VISIT IT IF THEY WI^1i, YEC. 20 I Q WHAT ABOUT YOUR MEMBER COMPANIE3? DO T11EY HAV[: 21 ~ ACCESS TO IT? « I I A NO. IT'S IN NO WAY LOCKEDt I'A.IT NO, THEY HAVE NO ~4 I Ar,CE SC ~. I MCAN. THEY CAN WALK IN iIT T11CY ^EC F i T C.tt0_tLrl T1SCY BC IN T1SC OrP'IrC.. ~~ C; THAT`^:. MY C!UC^TION. ,.;EAltli,.'t.tT C'0Ur:T RCF'•C1R T r.r"• CTR HN 014'865

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON-DISSEtAINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND DUK CASES. THIS DOCUMENT ~"-ECT TO ,;, CQNFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 1 1 A St JRC . 2 0 HAVC TIiCY EVER DONE THAT SINCE YOU'VE DCEN AN 3 a.A.B. MEMBER? 4 A I DON'T EVER REMEMBER THAT. r Q DOES THE L I BRAfCY PROV I DE ANY MATER I AI.S TO I T S 6 MFMGEt; COMFANIES. TO C. T. R. 'S MEMBER COMFANIET.'^ 7 A Tt1E "CURRENT DIOE3T, " I BELIEVt`, IS SENT TO TIiZM F ANn THIC ANNUAL RfFCd2T. 9 ~ 0 1IA : YOUR L I BRARY EVER HAD A SEPARATE BUDGET Ft:nJ 1 10 I ' TI iAT Cii' C. T. R. 'S PUCIGET? 11 I A T DON' T KNOW TI IA T. L i iA- ~ 1? MR. RA'i I+ILI.: 1:iryi C+ WI4EN WE RCAGt ~A ~ 14 r4ItdT. LCT' l TAKC A BZCAS;. 1!5 Mt':. T IAN{:^ s NOW I S OKAY. ~ 16 j 17 I~ iiEi'CiRTEi'•. ' S NOTE s WHEREUP'Ot4 A£HOr<T F•r;CAI: 19 WASP TAKEN, AFTER WHICH THE PROCEEDINt3^• r 19 RESUMED A5 rOLL0WZ, TO-WITsi 20 21 PY Mf:. HANI'Ss A. ""2 o DP:. EOMMERS. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD or THE USE or SAFC 23 DCFOSIT BOxE> BY C.T.R.^ :-i A 140. 1 E. _. Cl YOIt P1CNT I nNCP THAT nN[' ciF 1'OItr, LitJT I CS AS SC I Ct;T I F` I,- CCAt!1i,!f4T r_i~tit^T REr%#)RT+'R; CTR HIN 01'°r'BGG

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1995 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND DUK CASES. 1; 2 I I 3 ~ A 4 0 5 E• 7 ~ A 0 C'+ ~ ^ I A 10 f 11 A ~ 12 ' f! C• 1^ A 14 ~ 1 5 ~ 16 17 ~ C I 20 : A I 21 1 0 .,., A.c ~ 2S I A I I 24 0 2~ A THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 41 D I RECT4R WA S TO K.CEP UF' WI TH THE MED I CAL L I TCf2ATUt`t_ AND SCIENTIFIC LITERATUREt IS THAT CORRECT? I CONSIDER THAT S0, YES. DO YOU KEEP UP WITH THE MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ON VARIOUS CARCINOGENS? I T' S A BROAD f I EL D+ AND I ATTEMf'T TO KEEF` ur W I Tt l THEM. DO YOU RECOGN I ZC ANY £.URSTANCC^ AC DC I NC: C:AF:CI N0+:;CN I,r" Ott . YEG. • W IAT WOUL D THn~F DE? WELL. IONIZING RADIATION IS CLEARLY CARCIN4r;ENtC. , HON DO WE KNOW THAT? WGI.I. ir IN EXf~ERIMCt•1TAL ANIMALS YRU WAt:T T~~ Pt:ODUCC Sk: I N CANCCr. Or YOU WANT To f`i:0wr~L TYF'C S nt' I NTERNAL CANCER, ONE or TITC MO ST Ct'C I r. I ENT WAYC. I S TO C XPO^C Tt iCM TO X-RAl': OF' Suf R I rI I't1T ROCE oR OTHER FORt1 s or I ON I Z I NG RAD I AT I ON . THAT WILL. TELL US WHETHER IT CAUSES CANCER IN ANIMALS? THAT'!D THE EXfERIMENTAL RCSULT. DO YOU CONSIDER IONIZING RADIATION AS A CAt:CIN00Eh TO HlK1ANS? Y ON WHAT P0 YCr.1 BASE THAT? TI4C PION[ER R:,nIQLOGICTO 41HO UCED TtiC DCAM TO F:CALItkINT CGPJ~I,T RCr-rir.TC-i<.^.. CTR HN 014867

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, I 2 3 4 5 L- i 7 f F 9 1985 NON-DISSE,.IINAIION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN RO! AND "a CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. USED THC I R F I NGER S TO FOCUS TNC X-RAY E3CAr1 GOT CANCERS or TI{E SKIN OF THE FINOER::. WHICH IN OT1fEP: HUMAN BEING3 13 EXCEEDINGLY RARC. THCIR OCCUPATION^_• INVOLVING EXPOSURE TO "X" RADIATION ON THE PART OF EVEN MODERN RADIOLOGISTS OR EXPOSURE ACCIDENTALLY OR ON PURPOSE TO SUFFICIENT DOSES OF IONIZINC RADIATION ARE KIJOWN TO RESULT IN CANCER Of VARIOU-- TYf'E:.. n OTHER THAN IONIZING RADIATION. DO YOU RCCOGNIZE AN1' i ~OTlIER CARC INO :[NS? i 11 ; A YES. ARSENIC, INORGANIC ARSENIC IS A CARCINOGEN ~ 1^. ~ FOR MAN. i ^ ~ Ct ON WHAT Tf0 YCf1. 1 £A'.'•C THAT? i 14 A THC FRCNrII WINC INDUSTRY INVOLVCD FOF: YEAf? • TI II' 1r. ~ £f RAYING or TIiE VINES WITH PARIS GRCEN, WFiICFt 14, ( CONTAIN3 AR_•ENIC. THOSE INDIVIDUALC IIAD VARIOU'• 17 i` KINDS Or CANCER- NOT FOUND IN F`COf'LE' WH(1 WERE NOT 10 19 24 21 2? IN THIS PARTICULAR WINE-OROWINO DUCINCS;. AL;O, I NOIr:GAN I C ARSEN I C FIAS BEEN USCD AS A TREATMENT FOR CHRONIC SKIN DISEASES AND ASTHMA FOR MANY YEARS AND IS STILL SO IN A FEW CLINICS. ANn THOSE INDIVIDUAL'• DEVELOP SKIN PRODLEMw AND INTERNAL PROBLEMS WHICH MAY RESlJLT IN MANY SEPARATE CANCEF:T.. IT'S THAT 1.:IND r-fF CViDlffNCC. AL3O. IN ANIMALS YOU CAN ir1ITATC SnMC or TFI[SI' Ci'F'ECTC. tfEAlIM:fNT Cnt_iRT F;[I^nRTE'Rn, aZ CTR HN 014BGB

THIS DOCUMENT SURIECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUW•DISSEWMANUN ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO JN RD,~GE_R_S AND IM CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 4= C C- 1 L 0 ANl' OTHER SUB$TANCE3'' ? A WELL. IT It BCLIEVED THAT CHROMATE AND NICKCL+ 3 PARTICULARLY THE INDUSTRIES OR THE INDIVIDUALS IN 4• THOSE INDUSTRIES ARE 8tJBJECT TO CERTAIN KINDS or 5 CANCER. THERE 13 QUITE A BROAD RANGE or OROANIC 6 COMPOUNDS W}JICH IN ANIMAL EXF`ERIMENTAL SITUATIONS 7 AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER HAVC BEEN UGCD TO FRODICC r.. I CXPERIM[NTAI. CANCERS. 0 9~ W14AT ABOUT A3BCSTOS? IS THAT A CARCINOOCN" • L LET MC .IU:T CONTINUE. I HADN'T QU1TC FINI£FIED. 0 I'M SORR* ~ . 00 A11CAD. I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOiJ O~F. 12 , i A OTHCR CARCINOGt'NIC ACTIVITIES ARE NOW RCCOCNI ZCG TO 13 ! LIE IN CERTAIN 'JIRUSCS+ BOTII WHAT WE TFiINI: 0.7 A^ 14 C1RCIINAR`i VJRUSFr• AND WHAT F1AVE NOW BCC'OME CALLCU 15 ONCOGENIC RCTROVIRUSCS. iE• . NOW. YOU AOK ME' ABOUT ACBCSTO^ RS A CARCINOOCtt. 17 I MU^T SAY TFhT ALL CITY DWCLLER3 IN TIaC UNITCD i 1F ~ STATES IIAVC ASBESTOS FIBERS IN THEIR LUNCS, WHICII 19 ! COME FROM BRAKE LININGS. SO, WE HAVC A PROBLEM i 20 HERE OF THE DnSAGC OR THE LOAD OF A£BESTO^ IN THE' 21 LUNG. I AM INFORMED THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITE LOALl 22 OR AMOUNT Or ASBESTOS IN THE LIINO WHICFi WILL EQUATC W I TI I C I TNCR THE PRE aENCE OR ABSENCE or ANY DCF I N I TC 24 ABNnFMALITY F'ATl10LOGICALLY. ALTIi0UCa1 IT ItA_ PCCN ~' CLAIMCP TI1AT ASDC3TOSIS IS AS---.OCIATCD WITII AN rE'ALiF1nWT C:oi.IrT Fxr'C-#fiTrF;^ V TR HN 014869

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN•DISSEM1NAfl0N ORUER IN RO_ GERS AND DU CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUeJECT TO 44 CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 1 ' INCREASCD INCIDENCC, PARTICULARLY Of' M[IOTfIELI4M;. 2 AND SECONDLY. LUNG CANCER AND THIRDLY, IN SOME 3 STUDIES GASTROINTESTINAL CANCER. THE MATTER. I 4 TIIINK. REMAINS UNCLEAR.. S 0 S0, IN YOUR OPINION. WHETHER ASBESTOS 13 A CARCINOCrr. G OR NOT IS AN OPEN AUESTION? 7 A I THINK rROM THE MCDICALiLEOAL POINT or VIEW AND ~ f'ROM THC BASIC: SCIENCE POINT or VIEW. IT'S £USrCCTEn 9 OF BEING IN SOME INDIVIDUALS IN SOIIC SITUATION3 1 0 ~ % CARC I NOGEN I C: s AND I F YOU WERE TO I` I CK THC C•APtT I CUI.Ar; , 11 ~ SITUATION THAT I`--, PRESENTLY MOST CONVINCING, IT I I WOULD BE MCSOTHELIOMA. C 1: i 0 W1iY WOULD Ti•IaT DC MOGT CONVINCINr,? l a I 1" A IT IS Si,ILi TFIAT MESOTHELIOMA IN THE AE:•EtdC-E 1r ASDESTO: CXPO^.URE AND DEMONSTRATION OF ASDCJTL,S IN , I . , 16 OR NEAr THC TISSUCS THAT OCVELOP THC TUMOR IS ^'j 17 ~ VERY UNCOMMON T11AT LOOK I NO FOR SOMC C:.USAT t VC 10 FACTOR. SO FAR ONLY ASBESTOS HAS BEEN IDENTIFICD. C 19 THAT DOESN'T EXCLUDE OTHER FACTORS, BUT THAT'S THC . 20 ONf MOST CLOSELY IDENTIFIED. 21 0 HOW HAE ASBESTOS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A FACTOR^ ~~ A PATIiOLOGICALLY YOU SEE FIBERS IN AND AROUND THC ~3 TUM4R. BTOCH[MICALLY YOU DISSOLVE THE LUN^ ANn : Q C(1NCENTFtPA.TC T4i:' F I EtCR ON A F I LTER i AND THCr:C FC I PJ": 1:CYER:.L PTf rEf.CNT 1'INn; Ot' A3RECT0': t'IDf'R,. YOU TR•,• [cAIJMnNT COtIrT REF•OF;T['R,, CTR HN 0 1487`0

THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, TfHS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 1985 NON-DISSEMINAl10N ORDER CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. . i ~ ~~ IN 1t&A AN D2M CASES, 1 I TO IDCNTICY TfC, TYT•C Or A3DCST0S'. 2 ~ Q IDUT YOU JUST TOLD MC EARLIER ALL CITY DWELLERS HAVf 4 A ASBESTOS IN THEIR LUNOS. ALSO. UH-HUH. S 0 S0. I'M ASKINCi YOUI HOW CAN YOU ASSOCIATE A::BESTO': 6 I WITH MESOTfIELIOMA FROM AN EXAMINATION bt= THC LUNGS^ 7 i A I DIDN'T SAY THAT YOU COULD ASSOCIATE ASDESTOSI^-• C ~ WITH ASBCSTO^ IN TFIC LUNOS. I DIDN'T SAY TFIAT. I > ' SAID THAT SINCE ALL CITY DWELLERr HAVE ASDC^TO..^ 1[ F I BERO 114 THC I R LUNrS, WE HAVC A PROBLEPt 0'' T11i. 1 1 AMOUNT or A.CsESTOS t AND THEN TOWARDS THC END OF' MY / 1? ~ LAST ANSWER. WE 14AVC THE PRODLEM Ot' THE TYPC OF C 1' ASEiCSTGC. CERTA I N 1' I ND^_• nF ASDEST00 C I DER: Ar` 14 APPARENTLY PRACTICALLY INERT IN THE BODY AND bTSIrR_• i tl ARC B I OCHEMI CA:.L Y ACT I VE . S0, I N A WAY. I T ISN ' T 1 t ! APPROf'R I ATE TO JUST SAY ASBESTOS F I BERS ONCC YnU 17 `• DEFINE TFIEM AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIDLC. I^ ~ 0 WHAT DOC3 TIIC TERM "CARCINOOENIC" MEAN TO YOU^ C- i'~ 20 I I • A THC TEP:M "CARCINO4ENIC" MEANS THAT TII[ SUFSTANCC Or THE ACTIVITY. ir IT'S A PHYSICAL AGENCY, 113 BOTl1 21 I ( NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE A CANCCR. 22 I Q BY "NECESSARY. " YOU MEAN WITHOUT THAT AGENT TFIE ?^ CANCER WON'T OCCUR? 24 A IN OF_NCR.;L. 1'ES. 2~ 0 IN GENEF;AL+ E-CC,• lM4NT C C'Ur:T FIC.r'ClRTCrc'. CTR HN 014871

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f "V% 10 I 11 I ~ 12 I G 1^. I ~ 14 I iS 16 I 17 I 16 J 19 20 21 22 ~ 4- ^4 .,~ THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN•DISSEMINATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 4!. A 014. WE:LL, SUFPO•_^•C NCXT YCAR YOU FIND AN ONCOGCN[ It; THAT PARTICULAR KIND OF CANCER WHICH YOU NOW DO NOT KNOW. THAT. YOU SEE, WOULD CHANOE YOUR MIND. Q BY "SUFFICIENT" WNAT DO YOU MEAN? A WITFtOUT THE NECCSSITY OF ANY OTHER AGENCY, IT WILL LEAD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CANCER Q . HAVF YOU EVER HEARD Ot= TNC A.M.A.-C.R.F. PROJECT` A YE; . Q A ARC YOU AWARE WNETHCf; ANY C.T.R. S.A.B. MCM6CRC W4F:C FARTICtf'AtIT^ IN T11C PROJECT? ONC CC I CNT I F I C ADVI COr; Y BOARD MEMDER ALSO SERVED ON f? A 0 TItC C.R.F. WI i..'l WA^ TftAT^ Dr,. DIN~:a. DID ANY I'oRMER C. A. C. MCMDCRS ALSO SERVF ON TIi~T A t? i'ROJECT? I D0N' T KNOW THAT. DO YOU KNOW Wt4CTNCR DR KOTIN DID? F+ . NO. A. MR. RAYHILLI SERVE ON THE E.R.F.^ MR. HANKSA YES. Nr.,. T n4N ' T KNOW TFlAT. 0 D~:.~'nT IN IS A FnRMEr :. A. F. MEMUGR T14r,ilir_+1 l, I'• 114 Nf);" PrAUM:1rdT C:n:IRT rEt^r.,F;TCr,:. CTR HN 014872

0 2 3 4 s 6 7 THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON • DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 4- CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. A YE':.. 0 DID C.T.R. PROVIDE ANY FUNDs F'OR THAT FROJCCT? A NO. Q WF1AT WAS THE PROJECT'S PURFOSC? MR. RAYHILLI E.R.F'.? Mr. HANKS= A.M.A.-E.R.F. e 9 I A MY UND[F:STANDING IS THAT FUNDS WERE PROVIDED TO «: 10 I PAr".TIr'IJLAR SECTION or THi: A.M.A. TO UNDCRTAKE WITII 11 ~ THC : C I CNT I f I C ADV ISORY EtOARD Af'f'ROFR I ATE RE SCARCI ; /1 12 IN TIm FICLD OF SMOKING AND HEALTH. c 13 Cl WI t0 mGV I DED THE FItNnC? 1 14 ~ A C4t1C OC TFC- CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CAMFANIEC. G I I i THC C. T. i:. OR I TC S. A. £. MEMQERS EVER EVALUATC G T;ir RE3Ut.T3 OF THAT STUDY^ ~ 17 I A NO. 1 E ~ 0 DO YNJ KNOW WHETHER THE RCSUL.T£: WERE EVER F'UIDL I: I tCT:'• , 19 A WELL, WI4EN YOU SAY "STUDY." I SHOULD POINT OUT THCC•7- 24 'WCRE A NUMDER OF GRANTS AND A NUMBER OF FUPLICATI0*13'. 21 Q LET M[ GO BACK. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE PUSL I CAT ION'. 22 i RESULTING FROM THE A.M.A.-C.R.F. WERE EVER COMf`ILC[. &.a I~ INTO ONE VOLUME? 24 A I DCiW'T VNOiI. 25 ! C I IAVC YOU EVER READ ANY OF THE REStULTC: OR F'LIGL I CF.' I ON :'. £CAI!tU1NT Cr.)UrZT RC't`0,-TCR'• CTR HN 014673

I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C 9 10 11 i 111.1 14 I 1C, I i 17 16 19 22 2^ 24 THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN•DISSEiv1INA110N ORDER IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUQIECT TO ENT E . M CONFIDENTIALITY AGRE 4'• A FROM THAT^ SINCE THCY DEALT WITH THE GENERAL /'IELD or SMOKING AND HEALTH, INEVITABLY I MUST HAVE READ 3OME 01' TH[M. a YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONES? A N0. I WOULD BE HARD PUT. Q i THINI; YOU MENTIONED DR. BING WAS ALES-O A rARTiCIrc:rdT IN SOME FORM IN THAT? A I IC WAC A MEMDEF; or THE ,`aC I ENT I F 1 C AnV I SORY DOAFtG. E.R.F. G1 DID HC CVE'F: REF`OF;T TO THC S:A.D. TNC ACTIti'ITIE^ or A THAT PRr3JECT^ NO, NOT TO MY MEMOP:Y. 0 DID HE EVIt"T RCrORT TO YOU? MR. R:,YIiILLI MR. tIANKS= CONCERNING TItC C. R. F. ^ YES. A NO. Q THE S.A.D. WOILD NOT WANT TO DUPLICATC ANY RESEAI:C1; A THAT WA3 BEINO FUNDED BY THE A.M.A.-E.R.r., WOULD IT'• YES. WE MIGHT HAVE WANTED TO HAVE ADDITIONAL ORANT^_• IN THE SAME FICLD. NOW. IF THE SAME APPLICANT REAUCSTCD MONEY FROM BOTH OROANIIATION^. THCi;f TO D:^..nMC MEC1 IAN ISM SO THAT 1 IE 0^ ;I IC C0UL.DN'T IiArl tiOuBI. f--Q I F, ^O TO SPEAV. HOWEVCR, THAT WA'_? P:OT DCAUMnNT CO~ ~^T Ri•PORTEF^. CTR HN 014674

TH IS DOCUMENT SUBJEC1 TO AUG. 20, . 1985 NUN•OiSSEmiAAf1uN UKUER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN ~Qr A*D = CASE& CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. ~' I 2 I ` HANDLED BY THE THEN SC I ENT I F I C D I RECTOR OR SY TI IC BOARD. :~ I 0 WHY WOULD C. T. R. WANT TO DUPLICATE SOME or THC 4 J STUDIES FUNDED BY A.M.A.-E.R.F.? 6 MR. RAYHILLS NOT DUT'LICATE. : 7 i 9 A NOT DUFLICATE. BUT TO HAVE OTHCR PRCUCCTS 114 TIIC SAMC FIELD BECAUSE YOU SEE. A SINGLE RESEAttCrl • 1 0 - D I SCOVERY I SN' T VCRY OFTEN W I DELY ACCEt'TCD UNLCC: , il SOMEONE ELSE HA3 DEEN ABLE TO REACH THE SAMC i 12 ' RESULT. IT STRENllTHCNC~ FfiR THC SCIENTIFIC G 13 COMMUNITY WHATEVER THr- DISCOVERY I: WHEN ANOT:(Cr.• 14 FROJECT IN ANnTI1ER rLAC.E rY ANOTNCR GROUr OF 1S ' INVESTIOATOR3 REACHES TI4C SAME OR SIMILAR RCSULT. ~ ~ 1E. 0 ARE YOU TALKINO ABOUT REACHING THC SAME OR :IMIL F,t: 17 i RESULT IN AN IDENTICAL STLMLY^ 1:^.• I A OF„ NO. TFtAT'S MY POINT. AN ATTCMPT DY T11C r-AMC C ~ 19 j APf'LICANT TO GET FUNDS FROM BOTH THE E.R.F. AND Ttl" 20 II I C'. T. Ft. SHOULD NOT PC ALLOWED, AND THERE WAS £OP1C 21 ~ MECHANISM AMONGST THOSE THAT HANDLED THE FINANCC- 22 TO MA1:C SUF'tC THAT D I DN' T HAPFEN t BUT HOW I T 2: OAERATED. I DON'T KNOW. 2~ C: 1'M. TALI'INC Ai'ART PRC1M TIIC A.M.A.-C.i:.F. RIC,{fT NCV. YNJ MCNTIOFIELI THAT W{ICN INVCSTIOATORS REAC1iED TNC DCAUMGNT Cfo.lRT RfPOR'TE'r.:.; CTR HN 014675

l i i THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20. 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN R G R AND UK CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 1 SAMC OR S I M I LAF: RESUL T, I T STRENOTNCN : TF IC VAL I P I T Y 2 OF THC RESEARCH OR OF THE FINDINOSI AM I NOT Cl'1RRCCT^ 3 A YES. 4 0 ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT INVESTIGATORS REACHING THC S SAMC OR SIMILAR RESULT IN THE SAMC TYrC OF STUPY'' 6 i A I N THE SAME P I EL D. PROBABLY NO TWO STUD I t-^ 1?Y 7 DIFFERCI4T INVCGTIGATOR3 THAT WEREN'T COLLAE14r•ATOR': f WOULD DC IDENTICAL. '? 0 HAS C.T.R. EVER ATTEMPTED TO REPLICATC TNC 3TODIE^. I 10, I OF ANY OTIICR INVCaTIGATOR AS CLOSCLI' A:: i'O^:ICLC^ 11 f A WCI.L. NOW, C.T.R. DOESN'T INITIATZ RE':CARCiI AND 12 DOESN'T F'URSU[ RESEARCH. IT FUNDS RESCAC:CF1 FA^_•CD 1 S ~ DIJ AFF'L I CAT I ON :. 30, I F AN ARPL I CAIJT .^..I IOUI.D W I^:•I 1 14 I TO REPRODUCE OP: TO DEMONSTRATE THAT COH[ DI^COVC~;~' 1, I IN BIOMEDICINE WAS ACCURATE OR INACCURATC AND ir 1" THE APPLICATICN4, TFIE INVESTIGATOR, AND TISC 17 IN^TITUTION WCF:C Af'f'ROPRIATC, THEN TEtCF:C WOULD BE A 1f REAL FOSSIRILITY OF IT BEING FUNDCn. 19 Q HAS C.T.R. EVER INITIATED RESEARCH? AND GY THAT, 1 20 MEAN SUGGESTED PARTICULAR RESEARCH FOF WFIICII IT 21 WOULD MAKE AVAILABLE GRANTS. 22 A YES. I GO OUT ALL THE TIME LOOKING FOR 23 OPPORTUNITIE: AND NEW IDEAS AND IM4[STIOATO^~ 114 24 VARIOUC• Flf:i.L1=. Of CIOMEDICINC. I TI3INF: IT' 'rAr~T M'i t1OTY. C. T. R. L~~14^N'T DO IT. I D~ i i. rCAUPtr_,N'T couC;T rEF'nRTCF" CTR HN 014876

. 1 .2 3 4 S E• 7 8 9 .. 10 11 / 12 C 14 1 7; CG 16 17 i8 C 19 20 21 22 213 24 2~ THIS D 1985 OCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER CONFIDENTIALITY IM AGREEMENT. GER AND QU~ CASES. TIIC ~:TAFr DOE3 IT. I 0 WFIAT I'M INTERESTED IN LEARNING ABOUT IS WHCTHEF; I YOU AS SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR AND MEMBERS OF YOUR I SCIENTIFIC STAFF EVER OCT TOGETHER AND DECIDE THAT A C.T.R. SiIOULD FUND RESEARCH IN A PARTICULAR AREA. YE:. ~ 0 YOU DO THAT'' f A i YE:. ~ 0 AF'TEF: YOU'VE DECID£D. IT'C ..k^T A MAZTER OF FINDINr ~ AN AF•f'ROPRIATE INVESTIGATOR TO CONDUCT THC R[GEAR^:I- ' A NO. YOU GEE. RESEARCH FtSND I NG ID SO l. I M I TED THE ` LAaT FEW YCAR3 THAT THERE ARE MANY APPLICANTS i COMPCT I NG rOR L I M I TCD f'UNDC t THEP:CFOnC. I F' TI IC I fQ':-. I S VAL I n, 114 ALL L IKEL I I 140D. THCRE I S SOMEONE THAT ~ l WOUL D L I I;C TO DO I T WHO MAY NCVER FIAVC HEARD or Tw i C.T.R. I 0 Wt{AT I MEAN I S= AFTEFt YOU ANR YOUR £TAFr HAC~ I DECIDED TO FUND RESEARCH IN A PARTICULAR AREA -- A OFt. WE CAN'T DECIDE TO FUND. THE SCIENTIrIC __1 ADVISORY DOARD MAY SHOOT T14O3E APPLICATION3 DOWN . 0 aND NO MONEY COME OUT. AFTER YOU AND YOUR SCIENTIFIC STAFF HAVE DECIDED T,:! ~ - I'L L. ^AY - PURSUE RES[ARCFI IN A FARTICULAFt ARC:,, 1 tnt•. L;C; YOU GO ADOUT ATTRACT I NCi I NV[^T I GATr3R = Tn MAKI' AN ArF'L 1 CAT I nW^ CCA! ittntdT C:00rT FCrOr~TE17:'.~ CTR HN 014677

THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN•DISSEMINA1ION ORDER THIS'DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO IN ROGERS AND QUK CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. Q. C C- i 1 A I SAY TO At4 INDIVIDUAL OR PERHAPS IN AN3WER TO A 2 LETTER I WRITE TO AN INDIVIDUAL AND SAY. "I'M 3 INTERESTED IN THE FIELD OF ALZFEIMER'S DISEASE" ANr.. 4 THE INDIVIDUAL OR DEAN OF THE MEDICAL SCNOOL SAYS. 5 "THAT'S WONDERF'UL BECAUSE NE'RE TRYING TO SET UP A G SPECIAL STUDY Of ALZHEIMER'S DIBEASE. " S0. THEN I 7 SAY, "WRITE ME A LETTER, TELL ME WHAT YOU 11AVC IN ^ MIND. ANR WC'LL SEC IF IT'£ FOJSIDLE FOI^ YOU TO AT 9 LEAST MAKC A FORMAL APPLICATION." NOU+ TIIAT • 1.0 DOESN' T CONVCY THt:' MESSAGE BECAUSE I T WOULD IDE i 11 INAPPROt'F I ATC Tt tAT HE OR SHE I S OOI NG TO GET ANY 12 MONEY. THE ^CICNTIFIC ADVISOf:Y DOARD IS R0ING TO is ! MAKE THE DEr I i I ON . 14 I 0 DO YOU EJfR CONSULT THC SCIENTif IC ADViSORY C0.a^,R i a IN ADDITION TO YOUl: SCIENTIFIC STArF - 1:. ~ A NOT -- 17 1C 19 20 21 22 23 :a MR. RAYItILLI CONCERNINC WHAT^ MR. HAN:31 I'M TRYING TO FIm^••I-t. 8Y MF:. HANKS-t Q -- ON WHCTIICR C.T.R. SNOULD FUND RESEARCIt IN A PARTICUI.AR AREA^ ' A YC;.. ~ I WOU(. D YOU ~•0 Tt IROUAt 1 THC .^.AMC rFOf'mUi'r 1 N CTR HN 014876

THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN • DISSEMINATION ORl)ER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN R ER AND Dl K CASES. CONflDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. ~" I ~ . 3 4 . ., 6 7 A C I ~ 9 ~ i 10 ; Q I 11 / 12 A i; 14 15 i 1~ 17 ~ 1~ ! 14 l Q 20 21 A 22 0 ?? A 1 Cl 1.4 i ATTRACTING APPLICANTS TO CONDUCT STUDIE~ 114 Tti~. PARTICULAR AREA OF INTCREST? MR. RAYHILLI THE SAME AS WHAT? MR. HANKSt A: HE JUST DESCRIBED. I DON'T THINK "ATTRACT" IS QUITC THE CORFZECT WCFcr-. AND I DON' T TH I NK THEY ARC CONF I DED . THE OP^ORTl!r: T T'~ IS, £UOGESTEDt @UT NO, NOTHING BEYOND THAT. , THr•_ OPPORTUNITY WOULD DC SUGGESTCD IN THE SAM: WAY THAT YOU DESCRIDEn CARLICf:? WCLL . NOT I S I T ONLY MY^.ELFt BUT I SUSPECT TI iAT I N Tf;CIR RCGULAr. DUTiCS, F•ROrCS;IONAL DUTICS. TFic MCMDCRO OF THE SC I ENT I r I C ADV I SnRY BOARD AND TI t; STArF. WHCN THCY 00 TO CONVENTIONS Of: TALI'1NC ?C1 PC4rLE. FIND A DRIGf IT INVCCTIOATOR WITI I A 000fi I i?CA MICflT SAY TO THEM. "WQULCI YOU DC INTCRCSTCCl IN CONTACTINO C.T.R,?" C.T.R. ENTCRS INTO CONTRACTS FOR RESCARCH ALSG, DOES IT NOT? NGT NOW. HAS IT EVER? Yr.^. HAT . I T. C ~ Cr. CNTCR.CD I NTO CONTRACT.. FOf: f:C-C Af'•C I; WttI:.C Yr2U WCr-i• S-CICNTIrIC DIRCCT4R^ LTA! R1OtlT C OUfCT RCF•ORTCrcS CTR HN 014B't 9

i THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN•DISSEWINAfICN ORDER r,, TFIrS DOCUMENT S UBJECT TO IN RR~ AND DUKF CASE& CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 1 A NO. 2 0 DO YOU KNOW WHCN THE PRACTICE CEASCD TO CXIST'^ 3 A IT WA3 ADOUT THE TIME OR JUST BEFORE MR. H0B81 4 BECAMC THE CHAIRMAN. 5 Q S0. T11E PRACTICE OF SEEKING CONTRACT RESEARCH WA3 6 IN ErFCCT IN 1967 4A{CN YOU CAME ON THE S.A.E.^ 7 A I DOt1' T KNOW FOR SURE ABOUT 1967. C ; C.? F1AS C. T. r. EVER CNTCRED INTO ANY CnNTRACTs Pof: RE^CARrII '.<INCC YOU'VE BEEN AN S.A.D. ME:MDCR^ • C 10 A ; YE:*.. 11 Q WOULU TII[ S.A.E. PLAY ANY ROLE IN SUGGff?ING LINC: i 12 or RC^_•CARCIi FOR CONTRACT WORK? C 13 A YC1. 14 , 0 WOULD ANYONC OTHEF2 THAN THE £:. A. G. F'LAY A P<OI.C I N i ~ THAT' 1 d• A N0 . 17 ; 0 WHAT Ar..OLIT Tlir SCIENTit'IC DIRCCTbR7 14 I A WCLL. li?'s A MEMBER OF TNE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY C ls 84ArD. 20 0 01•:AY+ FINE. WHAT ABOUT THE SCICNTIFIC STAFP^ 21 A THEY MAY INDEED SUOOEST SUITABLE LOCATIONS FOR 22 CONTRACTS. 2: 0 Tr THF S.A.D. AND THE SCIENTIFIC DIRECTCIR ARC IN 24 AGRCC't4CPJT ON Fj PArTIrULAR j.INC 4r' Rt^CARCII, WHAT ^.~ WhUl..f+ IIAf rEN NCXT^ FE:.IIMCNT CGCa.1f;T i'<<FOC:Tr-F?'. CTR HN 014BBO

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, TY11S 1985 NON • DISSEhiiNATION ORDER CONFI IN ROGERS AND jM CASES, DOCUMENT SUBIEC DENTIALITY AGREE T TO MENT. MR. RAYl1ILL= THAT'S CONTRACT R CSEAf-0.II"• MR. HANKSI YES, AS FAR AS CONT RACT RESEARCH. 4 5 A WELL, IT WOULD DEPEND W`ON WHA T KIND OF R ESEAr;C1; 6 WAS ENVI3IONED. ONE WOULD NEE D AN APPROP RIATC 7 ORGAN I ZAT I ON OR LADORATt1RY THA T WAS SUtT i C I E'NITl. `, 8 ~ E6IUIPPED, EXt'ERT. AND RELIAaLE TO CARRY O UT Tlit. ?; RESEARCH. IT WOULD REQUIRE AD EQUATC SPAC C COR THf. i 10 PURSUANCE-OF THC STUDIE'3 AND A PFROPRIATEL Y TRAINCD 11 AND EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL FROM THE TECHNI CIAN LCVCL i ~ 12 UP THROU01 i THE PR T NC I PAL I NVE3 T I OATORS .- I T WOUL. n !' REttU I RE THAT THE COUTRAr_ T DC D US I Nf S^L IKf ANfl Tl;C 14 DUPOCT BC APP'ROt~RI ATF ; AND UND ER THOSr ANn rrr_,D;,; ;l ; 1S OTHER CIRClM1STANCES ARE NECESS ARY FOF; A^UC CCS -7hL 16 CONTRACT. I T COULD BE UNDERTAH :CN. I 17 , 0 i f WE ASSlIMC ALL or THOSE REQU I REMENTS ARE' ftf T, WE1I:f 13 HA3 THE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO DE CIDE WHETHER TO ENTC' 1~: I I NTO THE CONTRACT? 20 ` A I BELIEVE TI4AT THE FINAL AUTHO RITY AT THAT TIME 21 i RESTED WITH THC SCIENTIFIC DIR ECTOR. 22 Q SO, AT THAT TIME, THE C.T.R. W AS CAPABLE 0r 2^ iNITIATINC= RESEARCH INTO A i'AR TICULAR ARfA, WERf 2 4 ~ TI 1CY NnT''• ~ ~ ~ .~ FCA.irt~~t~T r_r_~~,Ir,T RfF'GF:TCR'. CTR HN 014BBI

( I THIS DOCUMENT SUBIEQ T0 AUG. 20, 1985 NJN•DISSEMI14ATION ORDER IN RD~ AND _D~(E CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITy AGREEMENT. MR. rAYIiILLs ARC YGU TALKING AC+OUT 2 CONTRACT RCSCARCH? 3 MR. HANKSt YES. 4 MR. RAYHILLI WMI DON'T YOU DEFINE WHAT 5 YOU MCAN BY "AT THAT TIME." 6 MR. HANKSj HE SAYS THEY NO LONGER ENCAC•C 7 IN CONTRACT RESEARCH. I MEAN. SAY . 1967 AND E THEREArTCR In4TIL HE QUIT . 9 MR. RAYHILLS SO, WIIAT'S YOUR GUGTIONT 10 11 Fl' MR. IIANI: ?.: ~ 12 t? DUnINC- TIfC FE'RIOn IN WHICH C.T.R. ENGAGED IN 13 rON' ::.CT I:C SCARCI4, I T WAS CAPADLC. WAC I T NnT , O'' 14 I N 1 T I AT I NC• FC^..CAR0I I NTO A f Af;T I CUL ACc AREA 71 15 A WCLL, TI C SC I ENT I F I C D I RECTOR WA S CAPAZ3L[ or DO I NC. 16 THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT LITCRALLY IT WA:: TIiE 17 C.T.R. I TITINN< IT WAS TIIE SCIENTI!'IC DIRECTO-R. Tit' r. le 19 F:CID'CARCH D I RCCTOR. ALL MEMBERC OF THE SC I ENT I P' I C ADVISORY BOARr. OR AT LEAST A MAJOR.ITY WHO N.;G TO 20 VOTC IN FAVOft OF FtNDING TIC CONTRACT. I THINI-: 21 THAT'S WHCR[ THE DECISION LAY. 202 A IF THE S.A.D. MEMBERS VOTED FOR ENGAGING IN 2^ J 24 CONTRACT RESEARCN ON A PARTICULAR MATTER, COULD TH` SCICNTIr'IC vIFIECTCIR SAY, "NO- wC'F?C NOT C:CTN~ ; Tb PG 213 1 TH:.T"^ DGAlItinNT CGUF.T rcF*fJRTEf;; CTR HN 014882

THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN•DI;iSEiv1INATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO r". ; IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. I 2 A 0 YE~. SUPPOSE THE SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR WANTED TO PUR•^:.UC 3 CONTRACT RE3CARCII IN A PARTICULAR AREA. YET THE 4 S.A.D. DID NOT GO ALONG WITH HIM. COl1LD THE T. 6 ~ A PROJECT BE FUNDED BY CONTRACT RESEARCH? NO. 7 j Q YOU SAID THAT C. T. F'. /IAS ENGAGED IN CONTRAr'T Cc ~ RE3EARCt1 S I NCE YOU' VC BEEN A MCMhER or TI I^ .^•.. A. 6.? ~ ! A CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN. FUNDED Am i'UFSUED. C, 1~) 0 W14AT WOULD HAVC BEEN THc NATURE OF THE R4 ';XCA'''t t ! 11 F`CRFORMEn BY CONTR:,CT^ i 12 i : A THE MAJnR RESEARCI I COt4TRACT I NV4LVED T11C L I FCT I MC C l^ ~ CXrOSURE or IN£RED MICE KNOWN TO DE CArADl_C or 1~ DEVEL0PING VARIOU", TYrGS or LUNG CANCER 1Y:ttlr,, u~i'+t.-- . 1~ ! FRE•^•H CIGAF:CTTC SMCN'E. I 1 -6 17 A ~ .; , ...... . NA.~ TFIAT A CONTRACT WTTH MICROBIOLOGICAL A_:~~~:I. ~T,: _ YCS. 1F i 0 WCRC THERE CONTRACTS WITH ANYONE EL£E OTHCi; THAN c 19 ~ MICROBIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES? 20 ~ I A IT WAS NECESSARY TO BREED SUFFICIENT ANIMALS. AND I 21 BELIEVE THAT SOME MOUSE BREEDINO ORGANIZATION MIOHT 22 HAVE HAD A CONTRACT. AS THE WORK PROQRES~.'ED+ IT . C i : WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE STATI3TICAL ADVICE+ PATI-IOLOGT~~,'. ^TUDI C', I MNl.rtd'It.(*I r_. AL AND I IEMATOLOG I C ; TUD I C^-• AND 2; '?TUDIC' !, 0f' D. N. A. . AM,3Nr OTHCR THINOS. 3^:':'i`AL nT I;CAUMi'tNT CC11JNT r:Cf'0RTCR S CTR HN 014663

1 2 3 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 / 12 C ~ 1.• 14 C iS 14 17 i3 C 19 20 21 22 7. 4 2" THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT T0 AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER r. .. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. IN R GERS AND UK CASES. TS 1C ";P'C WERC I N THC FORM OF SEI'ARATC CONTRACTS. NOT A PAF: T OF THE MA I N PROC•RAM. Q HOW LONG DID THE PROJECT CARRIED OUT BY MICROBIOLOGTC:.; ASSOCIATES LAST? A WELL, FROM THE PRELIMINARY EXPERIMENTS TO IDENTIFY THE APPROPRIATE ANIMALS AND THE APPROPRIATE SMOKE [:X1`OCURC UNTIL THE EXrERIMENTAL 4fOf:1: WAS TERMINATCD WA': a4MEWFIERE IN EXCESS OF TEN YEARS. Q TI iC i'RCOF.AM HA: BEEN COMF`LCTCD? " A [T ISP.VC: TFSC RESULTS BEEN F'UEi1.IS11CD^ A YCr•. 0 HAVE THC1' BECN PUBLISIIED IN SCIENTIFIC .10URN.aA NO. Q H0W HAVE TI ICY BEEN PUBL I S11EP? A AT THC END OF THC CONTRACT AND FOR SOMC MONTH'1 TI tCREAFTER+ ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO GET THE F'R I NC Tr,:.! INVCSTIOATOR3 TO COMPLETC MANUSCRIPTS FOR MEDICAL JOURNALS. FAILING TNAT. SINCE THC CONTRACT INCLUDCD THAT TNE FINAL REPORT WAS THC PROPERTY 0'' C. T. F:. , WHEN IT BECAMC AVAILABLC. IT WAS PUBL i SmC• WITii TI4E HELP OF A MEDICAL PUBLISHER. l1 I S I T FURL I SHED I N A BOOK FOT:M? A 1'C:. ; 0 nC 1'OU KNOu THE T I TL E or TS IF' B001:'' DEAUMONT COUf,T CE R Hl''t 01"t'BB'~'f

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. I ^ i 3 4 5 6 7 a THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITy AGREEMENT. A WCLL. IN ESSENCE. "CHRONIC SMOKE EXPOSURC OF INSR-Cii MICE." Q WHAT WERE THE RESULTS Of THE STUDY^ A THE SUMMARY AND THE MAIN RESULTS WERC THAT ALTt10Ura1 THE MICE TESTED WITH PURE CHEMICALS WERE KNOWN TO DEVELOP I N REASONABLE LARGE PlUMB1iR S ALL TYPE : OF LlkJO CARCINOMA FOUND IN HUMAN^. THAT IN THE LIFCTIrtr SMOVE EXFnCED MICC, THERE WA: NO SINOLC CASE or 9 SQUAMOUS CCLL CARCINt1MA, THE TYPE FERHAf S QE^-.T, 10 JCNnWId EY TI4C PU6LICi AND IN TERM: 0:' TilE OTMER LUNG ,. 11 CANCEF: VARIETIES LIKE ADENOCARCINO.MA• WHICH IS i 12 GENETICALLY PRESENT DEVELOf'INC3 IN THESoC MICE. TH[RE" 1'~ ~ WERE NO : TF:T I: T I CALLY S I GN I F I CANT CaF'F'ERCNCGS AMONG 14 ! THE SMnKC Eti.t'OsCD MICE; THE 311AM .MOI:C EXF`C1:ED MI1'F 1 S PUT I N T/ iC MACII I NES. BUT NO CMGKC l AND THE TN I Rf1 16 GROi.tf. TF 1C SI•IELF CONTROLS THAT L I VED ALL THE I R 17 1a 19 20 L I uC^ 114 C6.GC S. THOSE WERE PCR/ IAf`S TI IC SAL IENT FINDINOS. Q D I D THE I N'JEST I GATOR, LOOKK i'OR OTHER TH I NGIS DES I DC :• CANCERS? 21 A YE:. 22 Q WHAT DID THEY DO FOR? 20 i A THEY L001:ED+ FOR EXAMPLE, FOR EMPHYSEMA. NONC WAC 24 FOI!Nfi. THEY l.oGl'.EU rnR HEART DI"CA^_•t'i ANn IN DnIN'• GEN'ci:Al. r,1.)TOr:.I1.'S+ A^-• ORDINARILY I1C1rJE+ MA•.tOr: D~GAUMO1: T r_OURT RFt''C1ZTFt':' ~ CTR HN 014B. ~' ~~

I ~ 3 4 S c• < 7 0 ; 10 1 1 ~ 12 ( iC 14 1S 14 17 1? 1 S` ~~ 21 22 4.3 ;•4 :~ THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 4.~:1 IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. VISCERA WERE EXAMINED. THE MICC AL30 HAD SECTI4N:, I MADE OF THE TRACHEA OR WINDPIPE AND OP PORTIONS OF T11C HCAD+ INCLUDING THE NASOPHARYNX. THCIR BLOOD WAS STUDIED. THEIR IMMUNE REACTIONS WERE STUDICD. THEIR D.N.A. WA3 STUDIED. AND THERE WERE SOMc, OTHCr; SPECIAL INVESTIOATIOND. Q WHAT ABOUT CELLULAR CHANGES IN THE LUNG^~ WERE THOSE L001'En FOR? A YES. • i C WERE THCY FOUND? A BY "CELLULAr, C14ANGCS. " YOU MAY MEAN CYTOLOGY Gt: WHAT IS CALLCf.l F'Ar• TYPE CYTOLOGY. T!-I:.T WA S. NOT I INVESTIC:ATC['! Tt1AT IS. SMEARS WERE NOT IMVCSTICATCf". I IN TERM:. 00" TISSU'7 CHANGE;. THERE WEr-~C LCUIT-ICYTES ~ Wf'{ITC BLOOD CCLLS - IN THE LUNGS 0rTFiC MICC THAT SMOKED. AS WELL AS IN T1iC SHAM SM0K.C MICC. TtiCr.C i WAS INFLAMMAT I ON I N BOTI f 4ROUFS i AND I F YOU ARE INTERESTED IN MCTAPLA3IA. THERE WA"'j MCTAPLASIA IN SOME GROUPS. 0 WHAT GROUPS WOULD THE METAF'LASIA HAVE OCCURRED IN" A YOU HAVE TO DEFINC•"MCTAPLASIA." METAI''LASIA CAN BC A CHANGE OP ANY CE.LL TYPE INTO ANOTHCR CELL TYFEf .^;O. FoR EXAMPL[, A NON-SF'ECIFIC CELL CAN BECOME A MU.r.na; r. CL.L. , A MUCOUS CELL CAN CECOMC A SWUAMOU^ CELL. A SQUAMOUS CELL CAN DEVELOP CXr.EJ.I KERATIN. t-CAUMOfdT CC1ln:T RCr'ORTCR^• CTR HN 014886

' THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, TH 1 IS DOCUMENT 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN R~ERS AND DUK CASES. CONFIDENTIA(IN SUBIECt TO AGREEMENT. SO, JUST TO SAY METAFLASIA D0C^1VT MAKE IT POS3IDLE c• 1 2 OR PROVIDC YOU AN ANSWER. 3 I 0 DID METAPLASIA OCCUR MORE OFTEN IN THE SMOKINO MICE 4 THAN THC N6N-SMOKING MICE? 5 A IT DID IN THEIR NA30PHARYNXES. 6 Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TOBACCO RESEARCH COUNCIL IS? 7 I A I BCLICVC IT MAY DC A BRITISl1 RCSEARCH ORGANIZATION. C ~ I i' TF IAT "^ NOT TRUE, I DON' T KNOW. ? I n DOC: C. T. R. FIAV[ ANY AFFILIATION WIT11 IT, OR I,^-• 10 I THERC ANY CONNECT I ON DCTWCCN TI It' TWO GROUT`S^ 11 A NO. r 1: ~ Q DF:. SOMMCf;.-., ARE YOU FAM I L I AR W I TI i ANY C1F TNf I 3 i RESEARC? i COtJC1U•. TED BY C. T. R. PR I OR TO YOU^ DECOM I N-: 14 A MCMDEFt or Ti :E' S. A. D. ^ i~ i ; A I'M FAMILIAR WITH SOME or Tf1E INDIVIDUALG TIIAT Wrr,C ~ IC. ' SUPrORTCD. 17 ' G+ ARE YOII FAMILIAR WITFI THE TYi`CS or r.ESEAfiCtl? iC I A THE FIELDS or RESEARCII, YES. 1II ~ Q LET'S TALI; ABOUT EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH. HAS 20 C.T.R. FUNDCO ANY EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH SINCE YOU 21 ~ BECAME A MEMBER OF THE S.A.B.? 22 A YES. 23 P• HAVE THEY FUND[n MOF:C THAN ONE STUDY INVOLVINC 1 24 1 EF'IDV1I01_nr_,Ir.. R[SEARCH? ~ ~ A YE"'.. FIEalIMONT r_ n;,ir:T i;CFnrTCr:'. CTR MN 0 14667 1

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO t:• IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. ~ i 0 DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND ADOUT HOW MANY TIICY HAVC rUNnZ_t'^ ~ A I WOULD THINK MORE THAN FOUR. 3 0 DO YOU REMEMBER ANY OF THE SPECIFICS ABOUT THI^ 4 EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH? 5 A YEs. 6 0 WOULD YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT IT? 7 f` A TI IC LOMC)[3T STUDY FUNDED IS CALLED A SWED I SI 1 TW I N STUDY. TNE SACCOND STUDY • AND THAT'S BErOF:E MY 9 TIME - INVOLVED VETERANS Or T1IE SCCOND WORLD WAR. 10 THC THIRD STUDY IS CALLED THE FINNISH TWIN STUDY. IL i 11 ANOTHER F^ID~MIOLOOIC STUDY IS THAT OF FAMILIAL CANCErc IN THC MIDDLE WCST. THn^f ARC THE ONC^ TI;MT 13 COML" TO MIND IMMEDIATELY. 14 A MY RLIE'.T I 0N WA s s S I NCE 1967, HAVr ANY or TI IE Sr 170 THAT YO! I'VE NAMED BEEN CONDUCTCD f RIOR TO 19u7^ I6 A THE SWEDISH TWIN STUDY CERTAINLY WAS. 17 le Q SO, YOU'VE INCLUDED IN YOUR ANSWER ALL or TFtE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES THAT YOU KNOW fir THAT C.T.r:. ~ 19 HAS FUNDED^ 20 A I'M NOT SURE THAT MY MEMORY IS THAT COMPLCTE. AND I \ 21 WOULD HAVE TO EXAMINE RECORDS TO MAKE SURE I HADN'T 22 LErT OUT SOMC. DOT I MEAN TO THE BEST Or YOUR 1: NnW1.ED[zE R I OHT NOW. ^4 i TI I4?C AR;' THC ANE^•. YOU REMFr90rZ TIIAT C. T. R. NA"; 2~ I rUNnEn' B[AUM.r.14"I COi iRT Fi["F`oRT['R.^:• CTR HN 0146BB

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN•DISSErA1NATI0N ORDER THiS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. I I DO P:EMCM0ER TI tOSC . 2 11, THERE ARE TWO TWIN STUDIES. WHY WAS C.T.R. 3 INTERESTED IN FUNDING TWIN STUDIES? 4 A TO DO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION WITH RANDOM BRED 3 'ANIMALS IS NOT SUCCESSFUL IF THE DISEASE IN r 6 QUESTION HAS ANY GENETIC ASPECT. FOR MANY YEARS 7 ~ IT'S BEEN THOUG/4T DESIRABLE IN BIOMEDICINE TO 6 ~ I NDREED AN I MAL S I N ORDER THAT EACH AN I MAL. W I LL tsE 9 GENETICALLY AS NCARLY LIKE THE OTHER3 OR IDCUTICAL 10 TO THC OTHERS. AND IN HUMAN DEINGS+ IDENTICAL ~ 11 i TWIN'3 COMC AG CLOS[ TO OCNCTICALLY IDENTICAL / 12 ) ANIfIALF• AS WE KNOW. C 13 ! 0 DO YOU REMEMi:ER TI tC YCAR THC C. T. R. FUNI+CD TH I^ 14 SWCDISFi TWIN tTUDY^ 1~ A NOT TNE FIRST YEAR, NO. 16 I Q DO YOU KNOW THE HYPOTHESIS THAT WAS DEING TE:•TCC~ IN 17 ( THC SWCDISH TWIN STUDY? 18 A YES. ONE OF THE MAJOR HYPOTHESES IN VARIOUS HUMAN 19 DISEASES IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL HYPOTHE3I3 THAT 13 20 ShMETIMCS CALLED THE FISHER HYPOTHESIS AFTCR A 21 FAMOUS EARL Y EP I DEM I O1.OG I ST. THAT I S 4HENEVER YOU 22 ARC INVCSTIGATING A DISEASE. YDU NEED TO CONSIDER 23 WHCTHCZ THE INDRED GENETIC OR INHERITED AS'ECTS ARC 24 i C I TNCF: f'ArT or OR I MFORTANT I N C1n MO^•T , I MP'nl?TANT I N ~~ TIiC BAr..KGROUND or THC DCVCLOPM£NT 0f TIlI" DISEA^C. [c.r.;,i.irtC~r:T f'C~i!f..T Rff ORTFi:~. Lr TR t I N 5.,,0 1"C' BB9

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NUN-DISSEMINATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO ;. ~ IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. CONFIDENTIAUTY AGREEMENT. 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Q DO YOU K.NGW THE SPCC I F I C HYPOTI4ES I S THAT WA-_-- IIE I Nr, TESTED IN THE TWIN STUDY? MR. RAYHILLI THE SWEDISH TWIN STUDY? MR. HANKSI YES. A I i1pN'T IDELIEVE. SO FAR AS I KNOW, TI{AT THERE WA:• ANY MORE SPECIFIC HYf'OTHE3IS TO START WITH. ^r ~ 0 WERE OTHER HYPOTHEsES FORMULATED ALONG TFIC WAY. I 14 I ;A1'T[R I T HAD DECN FUNDED? , 1!; 16 17 16 19 ^0 A. 21 22 2: 24 A TI {C P`R I NC I FAL I NVEST I GATOf:: AT THE DEG I NN I NC - NOW BOTH RF.TIRED. TO MY UNDERSTANDING - SIMPLY WANTC[l TO rOLLOW TIIf NATURAL HISTORY or A LARCE NU11RER or T Cr'IT I+_ A1. AND FRATCRIiAL TW I N3 ON WHOM MCD I CA[. RECORD=• WERE AVAILABLE' TO 8EE AT THE END WHCTic['r. ANYTI4I NG TI IAT M I OHT HAPPEN TO ONE OR THE hTt iCl'c Or TFIE TWINC WOULD INLIICATE THAT THE CONDITION HAD A CON:TITUTIONAL BASIS. IT HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. Q WAS ONE OF THE THINGS BEING LOOKED AT WHETHER A SMOKING IDENTICAL TWIN'AS OPPO'3CD TO A NON-SMOF:INC. IDENTICAL TWIN HAD A HIGHER INCIDENCE OF ANY DISEATi.- A YE^. n TISAT WA^ SOMETtIING TI-tAT WAS STUL1ICn^= A 1'E.;. DCCAU^C IN SWEDEN. A~ IN MANY Cnlm1TRIC'. DFAUMONT COURT REP`OrTEr:-. CTR HN 014890

i THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT T0 AUG. 20, ~ ~ 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN ROGERS AND DtLK~ CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMEN T. ~ 1 ~ CERTAIN DISEASES ARE VERY COMMONi AND OWC CGUL!, ~ ANTICIPATE THAT IF FOLLOWED, THESE INDIVIDUALS 3 MIGHT SHOW SOME DIFFERENCE. 4 Q DID THE SMOKING IDENTICAL TWINS SHOW ANY DIFFEF2ENC.f 5 IN INCIDENCE OF DISEASE FROM THC NON-SMOKING 6 ~ IDENTICAL TWINS? 7 I A UP TO THC LATEST FOLLOW-UP. THC.ANVWEf: IS "NG. " 0 ~ 0 13 C.T.R. OTILL FUNDING THAT RESEARCII? ; ' I I I R NO. . 10 I I C! AS I UNDCF~.TANC+ IT, THE -SWEDI VH OG'-.'CRNPiCNT Ic 11 ! i i A Q FUNDING IT. AM I CORRECT? CORRECT. D0 YOU KNOW WHEN C. T. R. STOP'PED FUND I NG I T? 14 ~ A I DON'T RCMEMDER. 15 C! WOULD YOU EXPECT THE RESULTS THAT COMC FROM Ti l I S 1t• ; I SWCDIStI TWIN STUDY TO BE VALUABLE IN DCCIDING 17 ifl 1 . !I WHETHCi2 C I GArCTTE SMO1: I NO I S A CAUSc or ANY DI:•CA"F" 1 1? ~ MR. RAYHILL t OBJECT I ON. I DON' T KNOW 20 HON THE WITNC~3 CAN SPECULATC ON WHAT'S GOING TO C~ 21 DONE IN THC FUTURE. 22 THE WITNESSt MAY I ANSidER IT? 2:: I MR. RAYHILLI IF YOU CAN. I DON'T KNOW 24 HOW YOU CAN. , t•CAUP1CINT COURT rCf'ar;TCR'.• CTR HN 014891

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND DUK,E CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. C•7 0 RCaLIZC THAT MANY CHRONIC DISEASES' A RE MULTIFACTORIAL. 2 ir YOU CAN HOLD ONE OR MOi:E FACTOR c.', STEADY, TF{EN 3 YOU REDUC[ THE VARIABLES. TI4C FEW ER VARIABLES YOU 4, HAVC AMONG MANY AND THE MORE YOU C AN STANDARDIIE. !5 TltE BETTER THE PROJECT. 3O+ I THI NK THAT TWIN d STUDIES ARC ONE STAGE ALONG THE WA Y TOWARDS BETTER 7 EPIDEMIOLOGIC TECHNIQUES. 0 Q TWIN ;TUDIE£. IDENTICAL TWIN STUDI E S ELIMINATE MANY 117 OF T11E VARIABLES. DO T11EY NOT? , 10 A NO, sQr1C or THE VAR I ACI.ES. 11 T11C1' CL I M I NATC MORC VAR I AEaLE3 TIIAN NON-•TW I N iTU[1 I Ei . ~ 12 I DO TI{CY NOT' 1 !0 I A TIiEY MAY ANCi Tl1EY mAY NOT. AND YOU HA'JC TO STUf'v IT 14 ~ TO FIND OUT. ~ 1S t? WL"JE TALKED ABOUT TWIN STUDIES EN O U01;, i I~J ~ 17 ! MP:. RAYHILLt W1iY DON'T W E TAKE A SHORT 1 e 1 W%E:At:. ~ 19 20 ( WHEi.'EUPnN THE DEf'OSI T I ON WAS RECESSED 21 TO COMMCNCE THE NEXT MORNING AT 9130 A.M.) 22 .,.. 2-4 .,~ VEAUMONT CQUrT F:Cf Gr.TERr; CTR 1 t t l 014892

fi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND DU(E CASES. THE STATE OF TEXAS * COUNTY OF JEFFERSON * THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. I. BECKY BEACH. CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS. DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING CONTAINS A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPTION OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES TAKEN DURINO THE DEPOSITION OF DR. SFIELDON .~.•'OMMERS. VOLUME I. THE.TAXAr4.E COST OF THE ORIGINAL OF THIS TRANSCRIPT , . IS i----------• CERTIFIED TO ON THIS THE 1'111 DAY OF ------------- 71 - BECKY BEACH. CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS. CERTIFICATION NUMBER OF REPORTERI 2153 DATE OF EXPIRATION OF CERTIFICATIONs 12/31/86 BUSINESS ADDRESSI BEAUMONT COURT REPORTERS 2358 EASTEX FREEWAY BEAUMONT. TEXAS 77703 (409) 892-1490 BEAUMONT COURT REPORTERS CTR HN 014893