Tobacco Documents Online

,)1401 / J C4N FIDENTIALHKm~r~r~~ut~; roc-& cx-~ S A A / _ r l~` lr~~ (}/~ qL-0 l I c a t,.:~. G. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT -117-- •ufl.rt Uak Asnr co THIS DOCUMENT SUgIECT TO WNFIDEN7IqLIly qGREEME~Vi, -7 0 CTR MN 02844B

H KG''?0 0 5 0 11) S 7,2 S_" C0,( 1~ c) / w~a, 3 3 ~ 9 y 77&A S . ~ v CT <-- ~ THIS DOCUMENT SU2!_:- ' i CDNFIDENTIALITY AGR::'%:.V1. CTR HN 028449

PRIORITY RATING SCALE 1.0 1.5 I 2.0 2.5 5.0 ~.5 ZZ z 3- `-5 . 0 highest scientific merit above average merit below average mcrit lowest scientific met'it 57. About 707. of all approved applications normally fall within this range 107. 57. •- Z W I U C) ~

PLAINTIFF ~S DCHI8IT ~3S r..~.n uer s~ • aa SUGGES TED GUIDELZ::=S FOR I:vDUS TRY C0:'".ITTEE FOR T~' REVIE'A OF Z;IDUSTRY' S OVT_RALL IA'DEPESD-z~IT SCIEATIF IC RESEARCH rFfOR': I. To determine the Industry's short and long ter:a objectives for its independent scientific research, and to establish priorities with respect to that research. The thrust of such deliberations should probably be consideration of the impact of that research upon, among other things: 1. Legislative and regulatory matters. The i.~oact of our research on Congress, legislatures and regulatory agencies. 2. J~dvancemer.t of the state of scientific knowled;e, for use in both positive and defensive situations. 3. Public Relations: (a) Establishing credibility for the Industry ar.d its products with consumers, and ra-enforcing consu.e:s with respect to the smoking and health controversy. (b) Eaphasising to scientific and medical cos ur.i:-es the sincerity and magnitude of our coaLnitment to advancing the state of scientific knowledge. 4. Media Relations. Furnishing tha,mass and scient:!:c media with resalts of tangible and significant independent research that demonstrate the sincerity and magnitude of the le1N 2_0_S CTR HN 028451

- 2 - 1HJS uGC_Wyl ,.,-. CONFIDEN1IAUn AGREEyEA Industry's co.%-ait.zent to support o: incependent :esearcc: which will assist in closing ga:s in knowledge in the area of snoking and health. 5. Relationships with rcembers of the scientific ar.d medical cor,-nunities relating to litigation. Establishing credibility for the Industry with these cocr:auni ties tcr practical application in litigation and other adversary proceedings such as Congressional and regulatory hearings. . . : ~ II. It is suggested that answers to the following cr.-estior.s, and such others as the Co-zittae or other interested parties might pose, may provide the Cozmittee with info^watio:: that will enable it to racors.:.end the es tablish.tent of criter ia, as well as ad.ainistrativa structures or procedures, as will nost effectively and economically accor..plish the objectives to be established by the Industry for its independent scient:::c research efforts. A. Overall Obiectives 1. What are the Industry's overall objectives for its • independent research. 2. Can a unifor:a standard (or standards) of per:or-ance i be developed against which research projects can be measured. ~Z N 2-:c`?9 CTR HN 02~~~~

3 TH4S OOCU!dENT SUBIECT TO L CONFIOENTIAIITY AGREEME.tiT. 3. Can criteria be established to define how eac: of the Industry's research projects contribute to the objectives and priorities to be established for the overall effort. 4. Can the five subject areas referred to in Section I above (legislative and regulatory mattQrs, advance.aent c= scientific knowledge, public relations, r+ec:ia relations and relationships with medical and scientific cwnaunities) be rated in terms of priority of importance. What are the criteria for such a rating. Are short te ra goals different than long range goals. S. Is there merit, where postible, in attemzting to spread budgeted amounts for specific research projects ove: extended periods of time, rather than expedite the completion of a project. 6.. Can a practical, workable system be developed to efficiently monitor'both t2:e scientific and fiscal aspec:s of each project or effort. 7. Should the research be limited to strict smoki::5 and health projects. 8. Is the focus of C:R's research direction where :_ i 1 should be. 2~c~1J V \ { r. { 1 N 028\ E13

4 TWS DOCUMENT SUBJECT T~,' CONFIDENTIAIITY AGREEME."(;. B. Oraanization 1.' Should any of the research projects (Harvard, Washington, UCLA) be merged into or coordinated through CTR. 2. would it be desirable for all independent research to be funded through and coordinated under the aegis o: CTR. 3. How does (or should) CTR as it presently exists (or in any revised fora) fit into the Industry's goals and . priorities. Is CTR respor:sive td the Industry's needs in the mid-1970's. 4. Is there ef:icient coordination of the various Industry PR resources as they relate to independent scient:::_ research. Should there be a single PR outlet for the I.-:d::s::~ with respect to scientific research activities. 5. Is there sufficient and effective comcaunication between TI and CTR. 6. Should the nw-e o: CTR be changed. If so, to what.. C. Fiscal 1. Should maximum expenditure levels be established for research. 11ZN .:-* 31 CTR HIN 0264~i4

5 THlS DOCUMENT ;;;3:E:T TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEME4T. 2. Can (or should) the Industry in approving a resea:cti bud;et or project, specifically neyate any i-:plied co_:_.e: t for renewal. 3. Should taaxinum durations be established for var:c-_s projects. 4. Is the fiscal administration of CTR in need of i any revision. S. How can or should the handling of the CTR budget process be improved, including but li.mited to time of p:s- paration, presentation and approval, and details of bac;c:p support for proposed items. D. Derivinc !!aximc•^ Return on -::ves:-=ent in Resea:ch 1. Vfiat specific public relations activity should norr..al'_y accompar.y new research projects. Should they ~-e widely and locally publicized -- and if so, to whom an; whom. 2. How can the accocaplishnents of CTR and other resa&z:: organizations or institutions fu.nded'by the Industry be utilized by the Industry and the TI. Should a.n effort bs r.a--~e to change the public image of CTR. 3. Does the Industry derive the sarse, better or pocrz= public relations and political benefits fron research wh:c:z is cond::cted by instituticns and investisatc:s cutside cf -.1 CTR, than it does fron that which is identified with C:R. 2 .:c;3•' CTR HN 02-8415-15'

- 6 - TFti1S DOCUMENT S'JBIECT TO CONFiDENTiAUTr AGREEMENT. .If so why. 4. Are there particular scientific journals which are . of higher priority for publication than others. S. hre letters to the editors of scientific journals useful. 6. are verbal.presentations of papers at scientific meetings useful. 7. 'Is the Industry effectively publicizing research findings in other areas which are favorable to the smokir.g and health controversy -- •.g., air pollution, genetically- inherited enzy.-.%e deficiencies, diet, hypertension, intake of soft water, stress, and the like. 01 I , '?.:033 CTR HN 02-64E-56