Tobacco Documents Online

. . . _..~ ~. :. :.ONFaDENTIAL ° R. R. MUlhtser March 21, 1975 H. Goldsmith . . ;. . `--Tobacco Industry Sponsored Institutional Project on ...:; ."Genetics and Envtronmental Bases of Tobacco Related Behavtor." . ' Phtltp Morris and other Industry tnembers have received through Mr. Edwin j. Jacob a-proposal from a group of tnve8tlgators at the Institute of Behavioral Genetics of the Universities of Colorado and Hawaii for an extensive flve-year study on the "Genetic and Environ- mental Bases of Tobacco Related Behavtori" This proposal has been reviewed by the Industry Research LiaisonCommittee and is endorsed by the Scientific Director and Dlrector of Research for the Council for Tobacco Research. The cost of the study is to be borne by the Industry in the form of an institutional g.rant. ' ~ . .. The underlying hypothesis of this study was first promulgated by the Iate statistician, Professor R. A. Fisher, in 1958. He suggested :: that the genetic make up which results in ctgaret smoking as a pleasurable atperience might be the same make up which causes predisposition to lung can,cer. There la in fact evidence that strongly suggests an hereditary influence on smoktng behavior. The objective of the proposed study is to Invesr•noee further this hypothesis. The study U propose•d In three parts: .. ; . 1) A study of twin-half sibs in order to provide inforrnatton on the lnterpl.ay of genetics and environment on the smoking behavior. 2) A study of famllles In relatively homogenous ethnic groups, such as the Mormons ln Utah and the Japanese in Hawaii, with respect to their genetic make up and smoking behavior. -G- 3) The Influence of nicotine andJor tobacco smoke on genetically C l behavi 11 dt rra contso an . or. e In the review of this proposal by the Research Liaison Committee tt was generally felt that Part 3 ls the most likely to permit the development of useful I.nformation and Pazt 2 the least because of the complexities In defining population groups. On the other hand, tt was recognized that ,., I EXHIBIT ;:~..~ .. . ,,..~ . !.r t R t It'1 026466

I t - 2 - :ONFIDENTIAL one cannot really deiir,e and anticipate the problems or explore the probability of success In the proposal relatin; to Part 2 without actually lnitiating and procgedtng at least for a limited period to carry out the study program. It ts tbe:etore recommended that we agree to sponsor the program with al] three parts with the understanding that there will be a thorough revtew at the end of the second year to see whether or not it should _. ;'continue beyond the third year. This srran;ernent would permit us to give notice of termination in time to aalva;e whatever lnformation can .= be gotten with a limtted three-year study. Total eost is estimated at betweer~ and~ per year to be shared by those tobacco ~ companies joinina in the sponsorship. f' We would also recommend that the program be administered as a special project by the Council of Tobacco Research. Me Council would be asked to establish close liaison with the investi;ators so that the work could be thorou;hly monitored by a Council representative who would report re;ula•rly to the sponsors. . ^ft CTR HN 026469