Tobacco Documents Online

CN TO: Mr. J. F. Culiman III December 8, 1970 FROM: H. Wakeharn SUBJECT: "Best" Program for C. T. R. In retrospect of the November 30 meeting of the CTR Executive Committee, it might be appropriate to comment on the question "What kind of CTR program is best for the Industry?" At the meeting it was apparent this question is troubling many elements of the Industry to the extent people are reltictant to discuss the subject openly because of the diversity of views. To some extent this unsettled state also exists within Philip Morris. In the hopes of clarifying, at least par- tially, -the matter I offer the following summary, hastily adding that these state- ments embody ideas from many places. 1. Stated Objective or Purpose of CTR "To aid and assist research into tobacco use and health, and to make available to the public factual information on this subject". This Is a very broad statement 'which has been interpreted more narrowly to "providing financial support for research by independent scientists..." "to provide significant data about lung cancer, heart disease, chronic respiratory ailments, and-other diseases." (1968-69 Report of the Scientific Directox, C.T. R. -U.S.A.) A broader CTR program Involving the mechanisms of contracts as well as grants and areas of research pertinent to health, other than strict y-biomedical, . is not excluded by the statement of purpose. The narrower interpretation indicaied above must stem either from industry policy guidance or from the strong medical orien- tation of the Scientific Advisory Board. In any case, this statement of purpose does not reveal the objective need•of the Industry In supporting the CTR program. 2. It has been stated that CTR Is a program to find out "the truth about smoking and health." What is truth to one is false to another. CTR and the Industry have publicly and frequently denied whar others find as "truth." L.et's face it. We are Interested In evidence which we believe denies the allegation that cigaret smoking causes disease. If the CTR program is aimed In this direction, it Is In effect ~ trying to prove the negative, that ctgaret smoking does not cause disease. •Both ~j lawyers and scientists will agree that this task is extremely difficult, if not im- 'N possible. ON 3. What then are the alternatives? Somehow all caveats and platitudes aside, we 0 I-A must assume that CTR exists for the good of the Industry. How could this benefitm be achieved? N tion A. Aim the program at contributing to the search for the causes of diseases, especially those diseases alleged to be caused by smoking. Rational 1 r~o )xino publico; institutional public relations - the industry is interested In CTR NN 04~~ 119,

Mr. J. F. Cullman 111 - 2- Dccemi?er 8, 1970 . ~ human welfare and alleviation of human suffering; therefore, the public should love and respect us and buy our prodocts. Rational 2 t more research there is a good chance the smoker-related diseases will be found to result from causes other than smoking, and the Industry Is "off the hook." Problem 1 1n a tot national health research effort of 1, 000 million dollars, what impact will ourcontribution have? Is it even worth PR value? ~ t Problem 2 ' Assume we target projects related to specifics, like lung cancer. Will our 2 ; to3million dollars have any effeGt? Probably not. The national cancer research effort today totals over 200 million dollars. Besides, how do you judge high- return, worthy, viable fields of work for support? Too many investigators have selfish Interests for us to take their judgments at face value. No matter what or . how we select, prospects for a positive benefit are small. ~ Option B. Use the CTR program as a means of establishing expert scientific witnesses who i ~ Iwill testify on behalf of the Industry In legislative halls, in litigations, at scientific ' t~^'( meetings, and before the press and the public. y If this obj ective is the purpose of CTR, then a very limited, selective gran# progrm am should be adecjuate to do the job. There would be little need for research contracts or an extensive staff In headquarters. One might also question how long it would :: take for the witnesses to acquire the "taint" of Industry money. l cannot judge the litigative value of this approach, but I am impressed by the legis- lative testimony we are able to muster at Congressional hearings. On the other hand, my contacts with scientists outside the industry do not reveal an extensive awareness of, or appreciation for, the CTR program. It would be interesting to try to measure such awareness by the public, the medical profession, or by scientists at large. If after 16 years and 20 million dollars such a study comes up with a blank, as I think it would, then we can only conclude that CTR as presently organized and operated Is not convinctng •the public that we are objectively seeking the "truth" or "establishing good faith In the scientific community." Option C. Aim CTR research at the discovery of Information of use and value to the cigaret industry. J Rational Iiere are many unresolved questions •relating cigaret smoking to the smoker. Research on these problems would help us to understand better our product and N our consumer. The results of such research applied to our business would C) undoubtedly help us overcome some of the criticisms we are facing. These topics are not new. 2V 1. Biomedical studies on thc effects of smoke on the smoker and on how to 0 ameliorate undesirable effects by changing our products. Ea N CTR MN 04~ ~ ~0

• Mr. J. F. Cullman III - 3 - December 8, 1970 2. Psychosocial studies on the positive- benefits of smoking as revealed by smoker behavior patterns. 3. Epidemiological and demographic studies so we can give scholarly replies to the erroneous allegations of our critics. The way to earn the approval and respect of the scientific community Is to carry out and publish good research. I don't think we get much credit for this by giving grants. CONCLUSION It would seem appropriate to explore in some depth during the next year or two how CTR is or might be serving the needs of the cigaret Industry. The disparity of opinion on this subject within the Industry Indicates that the answer to the question Is not obvious. If we (members of the Industry) cannot convince ourselves of a definite answer to the question "HOW", then we might very well decide It is wasted effort. If so, CTR should be terminated. ' Hw ~ ~ cc: Mr. R. R. Millhiser Mr. C. H. Goldsmith Mr. A. Holtzman Mr. P. D. Smith Mr. H. Cullman Mr. J. C. Bowling Dr. R. Fagan Dr. T. S. Osdene TV O N N N O Fa ~ k-) '4rt / R I 1 N 04,31916211

ri: ; :1 Mr. WAxNUVN. You made reference to a seminal article in the Wall Street Journal about how cigarette makers keep health ques- tions open year after year. The Council for Tobacco Research was the subject of that article. This article cited the Council for Tobacco Research as refusing to answer any questions. They refused to answer questions for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, any of the representatives of the press in this country that gives out information to the public. Well, I think they should be called before the Congress of the United States to give out the information that I think is appro- priate for us to know about their activities and their presumed sci- entific inquiries-whether it is genuine science or public relations science, whether they are engaged in what they say they are sup- posed to do, which is to pursue the truth, or whether they are try- in to lay a veil of secrecy over that truth. Y do want to point that out. The press can't insist on these an- swers but the Congress of the United States will insist on answers to these important questions. Mr. Greenwood. Mr. GREENWOOD. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WnxMAN. We will leave the record open for other members of the subcommittee who wish to insert statements in the record. Mr. WAXMAN. Our witness this morning is Dr. James Glenn, chairman and CEO and president of the Council for Tobacco Re- search. Dr. Glenn, as is our custom in tobacco control hearings, we would like to swear in all witnesses. I want to tell you that at the desk next to you are the applicable Rules of the House, and the Rules of the Committee. They will inform you of the limits on the power of this subcommittee and the extent of your rights during your ap- pearance today. Do you or those who will accompany you desire to be represented by counsel or advised by counsel during your appearance here today? Mr. GLENN. Perhaps so, Mr. Waxman. Mr. WAXMAN. Well, you are entitled to be represented by counsel. I want to inform you of that fact. Do you or those who you have asked to accompany you object to aearing before this subcommittee under oath. Tr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. If you have no objection, I would like to ask you to rise and raise your right hand. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. WAxH[AN. Please consider yourself to be under oath and iden- tify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. GLENN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH, USA Mr. GLENN. I am Dr. James F. Glenn. I am a surgeon. I am chairman, president and chief executive officer of the Council for Tobacco Research, USA. I am pleased to be here and happy to cooperate with this com- mittee in their investigations. I am even more pleased to be able to bring to public record the facts and the truth about the activities of the Council for Tobacco Research. By way of personal introduction, I am a native of Kentucky. I had my undergraduate education at the University of Rochester. I received my medical degree from Duke University. I have- post- graduate training in general surgery at Harvard in the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital. I subsequently had neurologic training at Duke University after completing a tour as a flight surgeon during the Korean War. I served on the faculty at Yale University, Bowman Gray Univer- sity, and for 18 years I was chairman of the Urology Department at Duke University Medical Center. I then served as dean of the medical school at Emory University in Atlanta and then as si- dent of Mount Sinai Medical Center, Mount Sinai HospitaPre and Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. For the past 7 years, I have been associated with the Council for Tobacco Research, also serving simultaneously on the faculty of the University of Kentucky, first in the capacity of director of the Lu- cille P. Markey Cancer Center at that institution, and currently as chief of staff of the University Hospital and dean for Clinical Af- fairs. My curriculum vitae and bibliography are available to you and I will be happy to answer any questions about that, but I thought I would not belabor that. I am, of course, certified by the American Board of Urology. I am a member of some 35 professional organizations. I am currently president of the International Society of Urology, and I have served as president of the Southeastern Section of Urology, the American Association of Genitourinary Surgeons, president of the Clinical So- ciety of Genito-Urinary Surgeons, president of the Society for Pedi- atric Urology, president of the Society of Pelvic Surgeons, and other associations. I have authored one of the best selling textbooks in urology and I have some 270 publications in my bibliography, which is before you. I joined the Council for Tobacco Research in 1987 at their invita- tion first as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board then as their assistant scientific director, subsequently as scientific direc- tor, and I am currently chairman, president, and CEO of the orga- nization. There has been recently a great deal of negative press about the Council for Tobacco Research. We have been accused of being a public relations ploy for the tobacco industry. We have not re- sponded to many of these inaccuracies in the press because we didn't want to appear as a public relations arm. It has been said that we have concealed research from the public and provided misinformution about tobacco use and disease. Quite the contrary. Indeed, I reject both of those implications. As this hearing pro- •resses, I hope to demonstrate to you that the activities of the CTR ~ave been open and aboveboard at every turn. The Scientific Advisory Board does not consider whether research results will be favorable or unfavorable to the tobacco industry. We are scientists and we seek scientific truth.

I 34'L We encourage independent investigators to publish their results in reputable journals, preferably peer-reviewed. The industry exer- cises no control over our activities, over the granting of funds for basic research, or the sort of research that will be pursued. The Council has never diverted any research into special pro- grams or special projects for the purpose of suppressing research. Those who have worked with the Council over the years, as I have, recognize these allegations to be untrue. Let me try to give you some facts to replace these erroneous speculations. The Council is a private, nonprofit organization that sponsors re- search into questions of tobacco use and health. It was founded in 1954 as the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, later changing its name to the current one. It has been funded primarily by the five major tobacco manufac- turers over the years. The awards are approximately $20 million per year at the present time, making the Council for, CTR one of the largest private granting agencies in the Nation. We have awarded over $220 million over the years, funding some 1,380 projects by about 1,000 biomedical investigators. All this research has been performed by independent scientists. The Council for Tobacco Research does not accomplish research on its own. We have no research facilities. We are simply a funding agency for independently accomplished private research. The funded research has been done at preeminent medical insti- tutions throughout this country and abroad. We have grants at Harvard university, Johns Hopkins, Duke University, the Univer- sity of Texas, the Mayo Clinic, Scripps Research Institute, the Na- tional Institutes of Health, and several Veteran's Administration hospital facilities. A large number, perhaps the overwhelming majority of the re- search projects that we have funded, have been co-funded by other distinguished granting agencies including the National Institutes of Health, and its National Cancer Institute, also by the Environ- mental Protection Agency, the American Cancer Society, the Amer- ican Lung Association, and the American IIeart Association. I am sure if you have perused the 30 copies of the annual reports that we have provided for you you will see the nature of the re- search and also the credits oC those efforts both to the CTR and si- multaneously to other agencies. The funding is provided for research in certain key biomedical areas. Cancer leads the list. Over half of our grants at the present time are devoted to some aspect of malignant disease. Cardio- vascular diseases have played an important role. We are support- ing research in cellular and molecular biology and developmental biology. Epidemiology has been an interest, though fading, because epi- demiologic studies are not at the cutting edge of science any longer. We are progressively funding research into areas of genetics, im- munology, the neurosciences, and I might mention that currently we are sponsoring a conference here in Washington, DC., which is under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences and it deals with the functional diversity of interacting receptors. This conference is a special conference of the New York Academy. 343 Our sponsors were willing to add additional funds to our re- search fund in order to sponsor this conference. It is now in its sec- ond day here in this city. It is comprised of some of the most distin- guished neuroscientists in the world. Our focus has been on basic research. In recent years all medical research has focused on the macroscopic to the microscopic. We are now down to the cellular and molecular level as the basis for dis- ease. Until we understanl the mechanisms that can induce cell regulation and deregulation, we cannot answer the fundamental question of what causes cancer, for example. We believe that we are providing the best opportunity for under- standing the processes and mechanisms of disease, specifically those that are statistically associated with smoking. This program is consistent with that of other granting agencies such as the NIH, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society. Our grantees who are a broad spectrum of basic biomedical sci- entists for the most part are assured complete scientific freedom in conducting these studies. The grantees alone are responsible for publishing their results. We do not publish papers. We do publish an annual report with abstracts of all of the papers published by our grantees. This is done as a summary and a service to the bio- medical community, and you have that information available to you. The grantees in general are encouraged to publish in peer-re- viewed journals and publication is encouraged in every instance. We have never suppressed publication of any articles. There are more than 5,000 basic biomedical contributions in the literature reporting results of CTR sponsored research. They are in the most respected journals, and I will be glad to list those for you, if you so desire. Now, how does the CTR function? The CTR functions very much like a study contribution of the NIH, and I speak from personal ex- perience in telling you this. We have a Scientific Advisory Board of 15 very distinguished bio- medical scientists from all over this country and Canada. Appli- cants are encouraged to submit to us a preliminary inquiry trying to determine whether we would have an interest in supporting their research efforts. These preliminary inquires are reviewed by members of the Sci- entific Advisory Board. In general, about 50 percent of the prelimi- nary inquires are encouraged to be resubmitted as full grant appli- cations. When the fullgr ant application is submitted, the Scientific Advi- sory Board members review these. All members of the Scientific Advisory Board review all grants and two or more of the Scientific Advisory Board are asked to submit written reports regarding these grants. Then twice yearly the Scientific Advisory Board gath- ers for a day session during which they rank and score these grant applications. Clearly, we are not able to support all of the good research that is submitted to us, but we do fund grants to the extent of 12 per- cent of the submissions. This is approximately the same as the funding level at the National Institutes of Health at the present time. `

I hope that some of this has served to dispel any unwarranted suggestions about the Council. I am particularly disturbed that your source of information is the Wall Street Journal. The article is totally misrepresentative of our activities. I have been asked why we did not respond to the Wall Street Journal. The simple answer is, where would we start? So many inaccuracies are included in that article that it would be impossible for us to make an appropriate and full defense. I am proud of the Council for Tobacco Research. Our record is a very distinguished one, as you will be told by representatives of other granting agencies. We rank with the major private funding organizations of the Nation in supporting independent research by outstanding investigators. There have been a number of break- throughs that have occurred as a result of our research, and I will be happy to list those for you, if you would like to hear about them. Basically I think I could mention three. We supported Dr. Stanley Cohen, subsequently a Nobel Laureate in the identification of the epithelial growth factor as a key to un- derstanding cell regulation. We supported also Dr. Alfred Knutson, the man who first devel- oped the two hit theory of the development of cancer. This led to the identification of the gene that causes the lethal retinal blastoma cancer of the eye in children. We supported Dr. Henry Lynch for many years in developing his genetic library, library of familial cancers. Dr. Lynch and his li- brary were the linchpin, if you will, in the recent work accom- plished at Johns Hopkins in identifying the nonfamilial nonpolykosis colon cancer gene. A major breakthrough in our un- derstanding of the genetic basis of disease. I am very proud of the work of the Council for Tobacco Research. I am proud of my association with it. I am proud of what we do. I am proud of our staff and of the fact that the industry has chosen to support this independent research activity. Thank you very much. I am happy to cooperate and will be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. [Testimony resumes on p. 357.] [The prepared statement and grantee institutions of Mr. Glenn follow:] TnE COVNCIL FOR TOBACOO REBEARCii•U..S.A.. INC. HurruwTlNC nleMrnICA4IMVraelu.TroM Z~imonv of JsAee T. Glenn. M.p_ As Chairmany President and Chief Executive Officer of The Council for Tobacco Research -- U.S.A., Inc., I am pleaued to be here today at your invitation to testify about the Council's research program. Before describing for you the contributions the Council has made to the progress of scientific knowledge about diseases associated with smoking, I would like to provide some information about myself. Pereonal Backaround I received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in General Science from the University of Rochester in 1950. I then attended Duke University School of Medicine, receiving a Doctor of Medicine degree with honors within three years. From 1952 to 1954, I was trained in general surgery at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston. After serving in the army as a Captain and Flight Surgeon, I returned to Duke University in 1956, where I vas Assistant Resident and then Chief Resident in Urology. In 1959. I became an Assistant Profea+or of Urology at Yale University School of Medicine. From 1961 to 1963. I was an Associate Professor of Urology at Bowman Gray School of Medicine. In 1963. I was appointed Professor of Urology and Chief of the Department of Urology at Duke. I

X ~ 346 '1'11Y: f~1/11N('I1. Y()/('1N)IlA('/Y) IZKYh:AI</'ll-ll•ti•n•. IN('. Y,1•,v,wT~~Y I/IU.,rJ,~,'w/. Ir.vrnTl,InT1„N remained at Duke until 1900, when I became Dean of the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, where I was appointed Professor of Surgery. In 1983, I left Emory to become President of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City, where I also served as Acting Dean at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine from 1983 to 1984 and as Professor of Urology. In 1987, I returned to my roots, joining the University of Kentucky College of Medicine as Professor of Surgery. Between 1989 and 1993. I served as the Executive Director of the University of Kentucky Medical Center's t%larY.ey Cancer Center. In 1993, I became Chief of Staff of the University of Y.entucky Medical College Hospital, a position I continue to hold. I am certified by the American Board of Urology and am a Diplomats of the National Board of Medical Examiners. I am licensed to practice medicine in Kentucky, Connecticut, South Carolina. North Carolina. Georgia and New York. I am a member of 35 professional organizations, including the American College of Surgeons, the American Surgical Society and the American Urological Association. Among the various positions I have held in professional organizations are President of the International Society of 2 '1'IIF: (;l)(.'Nlal. Yl)It 'h()11A1'l:(1 IZIGYF.A1<l'11-II.ti.J\., IN('. NI'1•,•,.wi~,.,, llr„ru.,t•wl. Iwvutluwtu,v Urologic Surgeons; President of the American Association of . Genitourinary Surgeon§; President of the Clinical Society of Genito-Urinary Surgeons; President of the Society for Pediatric Urology; President of the Society of Pelvic Surgeons; and President of the Society of University Urologists. I have authored or co-authored over 270 publications in medical journals, as well as numerous chapters in medical textbooks. Attached to my statement is a copy of my curriculum vitae, which lists the honors I have received and further detail about my professional experience, as wcll as a bibliography listing my publications. I became associated with the Council for Tobacco Rusearch in 1987, when I was invited to join the Scientific Advisory Board and to serve as the Council's~Assistant Scientific Director. In 1988. I became the Scientific Director, a position I held until 1991. I became the Council's Chairman and CEO in 1991, and assumed the additional role of President on January 1, 1993. As the head of the Council, I have responsibility for the.Council's budget, which includes both grants and operating expenses, and for assuring that the Council's 3

awn TIIE COUNCIL FOR TORACCO RESEARCH-U.S.A.. INC. 8,'/rn~nwo nloru.~cnl Iwv~wr.owrww staff, the Scientific Advisory Board and the Council's grantees are fulfilling their respective responsibilities. The Council and Its Hiesion The Council is a private, non-profit organization that sponsors research into questions of tobacco use and health and makes the results of that research available to the publlc. The Council is funded primarily by five tobacco menufactureru. The Cuuncil currently nwardu appruxim.ituly $20 million a year in grants-in-aid to assist biomedical research, making it one of the largest private grant-giving organizations funding scientific research in the United States today. The Council uses its funds to support established experts as well as promising new researchers at universities and medical centers in the United States and abroad. A11 of the research funded by the Council is performed by independent scientists. The Council does not itself operate any research facilities. The Council and its predecessors have awarded in excess of $220 million to fund over 1,300 projects performed by approximately 1.000 researchers. Our grantees include three Nobel Prize laureates. A substantial portion oC the researchers receiving Council grants have received co- a 5 ~ ~ 84-528 95 - 12 ` THE COUNCSL FOR TOAACCO RE9EARCH-U.S.A., INC. N,•rw,.nno n~urw,cwL Iwvrwr,o.rron funding from both governmental and non-governmental entities, such as the.National Institutes of Health (including the National Cancer Institute), the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and other leading sponsors of medical research. The Council has funded research at most of the preeminent medical and ucientific research institutions in the United States, including Italvard Medical School, Johny Hopkins University, MIT, Yale University. Stanford University, the University of Chicago. Columbia University. Princeton University, the University of Texas, the Mayo Clinic, Scripps Research Institute, the American Red Crosa, the Salk Institute, the National Institutes of Health and several Veterans Administration Hospitals, to name but a few. Attached to my statement is a list of institutions that have received grants from the Council. The Council funds grants in a variety of biomedical fields, including cancer, cardiovascular diseases, cell biology, developmental biology, epidemiology. genetics, immunology, neurosclencs. pharmacology, pulmonary diseasee, radicals and virology. The investigations that have received Council grants have varied over time as the

T i ('OC.^JCII. FOH `1P0I1At•('O IZr:9F.AN1'll-tLS.A.. INt'. direction of scientific research has changed. In earlier years, in addition to funding other research areas, the Council funded epidemiologicall studies. animal inhalation studiee, cell culture reuearch, basic clinical research and pathology studies. The Council has also sponsored conferences on various areas of research, such as animal inhalation and cell cultures. In more recent years, the Council's focus has been largely on basic cellular and subcellular research, which today is believed to provide the best opportunity for understanding the processes and mechanisms of diseases, including those that have been statistically associated with smoking. The Council's increasing allocation of grants to basic research reflects the progress of science generally and is consistent with the evolution of research programs at other funding agencies concerned with questions of tobacco uee and health, such as the National Institutee of Health, the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. The Council'e financial eupport hae been an important reeource for independent reeearch that advancee knowledge about tobacco and health. It hae sponsored pioneering work in identifying familial cancers, the role of genetic factore in cancer formation, and the identification 6 'I'IIF: COL'NCII. FOFt 'COISAI'CO KF.9F.AHl'al-L.S.A.. IN/'. of oncogenes. The Council was instrumental in supporting ~ early work on the r;e of free radicals in the etiology of diseaves and in opening up the new field of growth factor reseatrh. This work, like the rest of the research supported by the Council, has added to the scientific knowledge of the mechanisms and processes of diseasen statistically associated with smoking. Council grantees are assured complete scientific freedom in conducting their studies. They alone are responsible for reporting their findings in the accepted scientific manner -- through medical and scientific journals and societies. Publication of research results is encouraged in all instances. That Council grantees respond to this encouragement is attested to by the more than 5,000 publications that have appeared reporting the results of the Council-funded research projects undertaken by its 1.000 grantees. Those articles have appeared in the most respected peer-review journals, including the Journal of thp PWi ivm~l iunceLSn:uiLUte. the 7sluwaLef ths Ameclcc%n Medical Aseociat:ion, the New Eny and Journal of Midieine. and the journals Cance t, $eart and Circulation, The Council also prepares and distributes an annual report that contains 7

J5L THF. COUNCIL FOR TUDA(.(.U IlFHk:AKI:[f-U.S.A.. IN(.. 'ri11L Cl/I/Nl.[I. YY)si 'PO11AlY'l) SZF:NP:AKI`II-U.S.A.. INC. 4 :1 i 9uwrowTlN~1 n~eNfD~<wL IN"I/~T,ewT,eN abstracts of publications appearing during the year that resulted from research funded by the Council. The Council has also, to my understanding, contracted with investigators to undertake research projects on specific matters that involved larger and longer-term commitmente than was normally available through the grant program. In addition. I understand that the Council in the past administered funds for special projects that particular companies had separately arranged for investigators to perform; these special projects were not part of and did not impact the Council's grant program. Nor to my knowledge in there any truth to the notion that such special projects were used to suppress the publication of research results. procedures for Awardina Qrante The Council's grant-review process is similar to that used by many other granting agencies, such ae study sections of the National Institutes of Health. Funding decisions by the Council are made upon advice received from its Scientific Advisory Board (•SAD•). The SAB is composed of distinguished scientieto from various fieldn of biomedical research. xith the exception of the Scientific Director, who is a full-time Council employee. SA8 members retain their affiliations with their academic and research 8 ' Yurl-~.wT,Na n~uNwm...1.INV'.T~owT1oN institutions. There are currently 15 SAB members, including three members of the National Academy of Sciences. The SAB members receive a per,diem allovance in connection with attending meetings, but they are not compensated for the much more substantial time they spend reviewing applications between meetings. The SAB has an Executive Committee, which consists of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the SAD, the Scientific Director and three other SAD members. The grant process begins with the receipt of a proposal from an applicant. Independent investigators send preliminary applications to the Council, describing their proposed research. The preliminary applications are read by reveral members of the Executive Committee of the SAD. The Executive Committee then votes to encourage or discourage the application. Final, full applications are distributed to all members of the SAB. Each final application is also assigned to two members of the SAH selected on the basis of their knowledge and expertise in the relevant scientific field. These reviewers are given primary responsibility for evaluating tha proposal in detail and presenting it to their SAD colleagues. The SAB meets twice a yaar to discuss the applications and to rate them by secret ballot. The SAD's 9