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

THF. COl:NC1L FOR TORACCo RF.9F.ARC11-U.S.A.. INC. 7u.ruwr,nn n,or.n,twl InvUr,owrn,n ratings are then used to establish a priority ranking among the applications, which I. in consultation with the Council's scientific staff, apply in allocating specific grant awards. The SA0 is informed of the precise awards made by the Council. Most grant applications request a three-year period of support. Grants are awarded, however, for one year at a time. For the second and third years of a typical grant, the researcher must submit what we call a noncompeting renewal application. These applications are reviewed by two SAB members -- generally the same two SAH members who were the principal reviewers of the original grant application. The full SAB then votes whether to recommend the applications for approval. Some applications for grant support involve arean of inquiry about which SAB members believe they would benefit from consultation with experts and specialists outside of the Council in considering applications. In those occasional instances. meabers of the SAB recommend to the Council's scientific statf scientists or physicians who are knowledgeable on the particular subject; these individuals are then asked to assist in reviewing the grant 10 'I•l1E COUNCIL FOR TORACCO RF.REARCIi-U.S.A., INC. Yurn~nru.o Nowoncw,. invrwrmwrron application. These scientists are selected because of theif distinguished credentials and their particular expertise. . If, after Ne completion of the typical three-year grant cycle, a researcher wishes to receive further support from the Council for an extension of the same research project, he or she must submit a competing renewal application. Competing renewal applications are evaluated through the same process by which full original applications are evaluated. In evaluating grant applications, the members of the SIID bring to bear their understanding of the state of scientific knowledge in the areas covered by the grant proposals. The SAB members consider the results of previously reported research in any particular field, which might include research performed by Council-funded investigators, in evaluating whether a particular proposal is meritorious. The SAB does pp,t consider, for any type of grant application (original, noncompeting renewal or competing renewal), whether any of the investigator's prior research produced results thought to be favorable or unfavorable to the tobacco industry. Industry sponsors exercise no control over the decislon to fund a particular grant applicatlon or 11 i

u "~*t with respect to the publication of the results of any sponsored research. Selection of SAB Membere end Other Pe~~gqy~qvp_tp The Council selects for the SAB distinguished scientists who can bring cutting-edge expertise in various areas of biomedical research. The Council seeks to maintain a wide range of expertise on the SAB, so that the appropriate biomedical areas are represented in the grant application process. When a vacancy occurs on the SAB, the Chairman of the Cou.icil and the Scientific Director solicit from SAo members recommendations for a successor. As a general matter, the Chairman of the Council or an SAB member will contact individuals who have been recommended and ask them to attend an SAB meeting to give a prenentation on their research. After candidateu have attended an SAD meetLni, SAD membors arrd the Chairman of the Council will confec to see if there is a consensus to extend an Snvitation to Join the SAB. I am proud of The Council for Tobacco Research and my association with it. The Council has provided vital support to nearly 1,000 independent researchers. Its research program has played a key role in advancing our knowledge of diseases that have been associated with smoking. I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present this brief picture of the Council and its contributions to biomedical research, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. WAXMAN. Dr. Glenn, thank you very much for your testi- mony and for being here today. I appreciate your being here and since you are our only witness, if you need to take a short break at any time, let us know. We are going to go through some areas and give you the oppor- tunity to respond to some of these things that have been said and tell us more information about the Council on Tobacco Research. I find your comments about the Wall Street Journal article inter- esting. You didn't commeTlt to them before they did the article and then afterwards they had so many inaccuracies you didn't want to respond. This is your chance and we want to go through some of these is- sues with you. In recent months, we have begun the process of learning more about the tobacco industry. We still, however, need to know more about this Council on Tobacco Research. I want to go back over 40 years. In 1954, the major tobacco companies joined together in issuing a "frank statement to cigarette smokers", a copy of this statement is Exhibit 4, and excerpts of the statement are displayed on the chart, which we would like to have displayed. Are you familiar with this statement? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. You know at the same time the companies created the Tobacco Industry Research Council, the previous name for your Council for Tobacco Research. Mr. GLENN. Yes. Mr. WAXMAN. I released the staff report today on Hill and Knowlton documents, which were written from 1954 to 1956. These documents provide considorublo insight into the founding of your Council, and I would like to ask you some questions about these documents. In 1953, there was tremendous public interest in the hazards of smoking. In that year, for instance, Dr. Winter of Sloan-Kettering published a major study showing that mice painted with tobacco tars developed fatal cancers. A copy of this report is Exhibit 1. The Sloan-Kettering report received significant public attention at the time. Are you aware of this report? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. The tobacco industry was very concerned about the Sloan-Kettering report and other similar work coming out in the early 1950's. In fact, on December 15, 1953, an unprecedented meeting of the CEO's of the major tobacco companies took place to respond to these reports. Are you aware of that meeting? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. I have a memorandum written by Bert C. Goss of the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton as Exhibit 2. Mr. Goss and the founder of Hill and Knowlton, John Hill, attended the De- cember 15 meeting. Mr. Goss' memorandum memorialized what happened. Aro you familiar with his momorandum? Mr. GLENN. I think I am, Mr. Waxman. Mr. WAXMAN. This memorandum is crucial in understanding the strategy of the tobacco industry. In attendance at the meeting were paul Hahn, president of the American Tobacco Company; Joseph J

358 Cullman of Benson & Hedges; Parker McComas, president of Philip Morris; Whitney Peterson, president of U.S. Tobacco. According to the memorandum, the meeting is the first time these CEO's ever met out of a social context. They are taking this extraordinary step because they agree that the health criticisms are extremely serious and worthy of drastic action. At the meeting they agreed that what is needed is not more science or research but a public relations campaign to counter the mounting evidence of the adverse health effects of smoking. In their own words they decide they should sponsor and I quote, "A public relations campaign which is entirely pro-cigarettes." The plan of action is fleshed out in another Hill and Knowlton memorandum written just 9 days later. This is Exhibit 3, entitled "Preliminary Recommendations for Cigarette Manufacturers." In this memorandum, Hill and Knowlton recommends that your organization be created for explicitly public relations nonscientific purposes. Are you familiar with this exhibit? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. WAxmAN. The memorandum states and I quote, "The under- lying purpose of any activity at this stage should be reassurance of the public...It is important that the public recognize the exist- ence of weighty scientific views which hold that there is no proof that cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer." The memorandum goes on to recommend that to achieve this public relations purpose, the industry should create the Council for Tobacco Research-then called Tobacco Industry Research Commit- tee; and the memorandum further recommends that the very first action of the new organization should be the assurance of a frank statement, like that we talked about earlier. As you can see, your organization was not thought up by sci- entific researchers who perceived a need to know more about health effects of tobacco, it was dreamt up by the public relations experts who perceived the need to calm public fears. It is not fair for me to ask you if you are familiar with all the documents in this subcommittee report. You have not had a chance to study them all thoroughly. Instead, I want to describe for you some of the early activities of the Council for Tobacco Research. I will describe these activities and ask you a simple question, are these activities scientific in nature-as you say is the devotion and goal of the Council-or are these public relations activities? Let me begin with a simple matter of staffing. According to these documents, the Council for Tobacco Research hired 23 public relations experts from Hill and Knowlton in 1954, its first year of operation, and 35 public relations experts from Hill and Knowlton in 1955, which would be its second year of operation. Can you explain why a small organization that is supposed to be purely scientific needs to employ the services of 2 to 3 dozen public relations experts? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, on the basis of my knowledge I would have to reject that. The Council for Tobacco Research has been the research arm not the public relations arm for the tobacco industry. Mr. WAxmAN. Well, we have Exhibit 10 which shows the budget of the organization at that time. It indicates the charges paid to 359 Hill and Knowlton, which of course no one would argue is a sci- entific organization. This was before you were there at the Council. At that time, they were spending money on 2 to 3 dozen public relations experts. According to these documents, one of the activi- ties of the Council was to turn obscure research findings that were favorable to the tobacco industry into headline news around the country. A good example of thig is Exhibit 13, a confidential public rela- tions report on the activities of the Council and I want to read to you from page 6 of this report. "A report from the New Zealand public health official, published in a British medical journal, attrib- uted the increase in lung cancer incidence to air pollution and not to smoking. Advance information of the date of publication was ob- tained from contacts in New Zealand and England when it ap- peared and it was brought to the attention of the United States press. Stories and editorials on it appeared in many newspapers." Dr. Glenn, is this activity, encouraging the media to write stories about obscure research favorable to the tobacco industry, a sci- entific activity or public relations activity? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, my answer to that, I have to tell you that in 1954 1 was in the Korean War as a flight surgeon so I may not be au courant with what was happening in the press at that time. I will say that these documents were not made available to me until this young man began passing them here to the witness table. So I really haven't had a chance to review them and I have had no opportunity to develop any response. This is ancient history and I really cannot verify it one way or the other. Mr. WAX1vtpN. Well, I am asking you from the documents I have described, and I have acknowledged the fact that you were not there, if the Council were working on encouraging writers of news- papers to cite obscure scientific articles and they were trying to get favorable articles written, would you consider that, what I have just described, as scientific research activity or public relations ac- tivity? Mr. GLENN. I appreciate the way that you have phrased the question. I was not there. But I can tell you that the Council for Tobacco Research and its research arm have been directed by a Sci- entific Advisory Board of very distinguished people from the begin- n 7. r. WAxmAN. But I am asking you to answer for me whether you consider the activity I described for you scientific in nature or pub- lic relations in nature? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, the activities of the Scientific Advisory Board and the Council for Tobacco Research have always been dedicated to science. Mr. WAXMAN. Let me- Mr. GLENN. Whatever activities that may have been accom- plished by Hill and Knowlton are beyond my knowledge or recollec- tion. Mr. WAxmAN. Hill and Knowlton was paid a substantial amount of money by the Council. According to these documents, another ac- tivity of the CTR was to commission free-lance authors to write fa- .

C ovV vorable articles about cigarettes. These articles would then appar- ently be published under the name of the free-lance author with no acknowledgment of the link to the Council. For instance, Exhibit 9, a report on tobacco industry research committee information activities contains this entry on page 4, "C.B. Colby, free-lance popularizer of science was retained for re- search and possible writing of articles concerning all the hazards of modern life which people are cautioned against and leading to the conclusion that in spite of all the death scares, you still live longer." Is hiring a free-lance popularizer of science urging people to ig- nore death scares a scientific inquiry? Mr. GLENN. That is beyond my knowledge, as you must know. I notice this memorandum, however, is an internal memorandum of Hill and Knowlton. They, indeed, are a public relations firm. But they were independent of and separate from the Council for To- bacco Research to my knowledge. Mr. WAXMAN. I dispute that. We will move on to other Members who have questions and we will come back to some of these points. Mr. Bliley. Mr. BLILEY. Dr. Glenn, could you identify those who serve on the CTR Scientific Advisory Board, what their background is? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Let me go to my notes lest I miss somebody. The Scientific Advisory Board consists of at the present time 15 very distinguished individuals; alphabetically they are, Dr. Leo G. Abood, professor of Pharmacology and Biochemistry at the Univer- sity of Rochester; Dr. Barry G. Arnison, chairman of the Depart- ment of Urology and director of the Brain Institute at the Univer- sity of Chicago; Dr. Drummond Bouden, chairman of the Depart- ment of Pathology, University of Manitoba; Dr. Michael Brennan, director emeritus of the Michigan Cancer Center in Detroit; Dr. Carl O. Croci, director of the Thomas Jefferson Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia; Dr. Raymond Erickson, professor of Molecular Biology, Harvard University; Dr. Joseph Feldman, professor of Immunology and research director emeritus at the Scripps Institute in California; Dr. Gordon Gale, professor of Medicine and Endocrinology at the University of California, San Diego; Dr. W. K Yaclick, professor and chairman of the Depart- ment of Microbiology at Duke University; Dr. Manfred Carnofski, professor of Biochemistry, Harvard University; Dr. Henry Lynch, Creighton University, director of the Department of Preventive Medicine, and the same Lynch to whom I referred previously who is responsible for our most recent understanding of genetic disease for-as the basis for cancer;' Dr. Harmon McAllister, a biochemist and our current scientific director, also a member of the board; Dr. Barry Pierce, chairman emeritus of the Department of Pathology, University of Colorado; Dr. Judith Swain, professor of Medicine, di- rector of the Division of Cardiovascular Disease and Medical Genet- ics at the University of Pennsylvania; and Dr. Peter Vote, formerly chairman of the Department of Microbiology at the Universicy of Southern California, now director of research at the Scripps Insti- tute. ^1 Mr. BLILEY. Isn't the role of the CTR's Scientific Advisory Board comparable to the role of similar advisory boards? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. BLILEY. To your knowledge to what extent have the member companies attempted to influence the research activities of the Sci- entific Advisory Board? - Mr. GLENN. They have never attempted to influence our activi- ties in any way to my knqwledge. Mr. BLILEY. How long have you been in your present capacity? Mr. GLENN. In my present capacity 5 years, 4 years, but associ- ated with CTR for 7 years. Mr. BLILEY. There have been some recent criticisms of CTR largely arising from the Cipollone case. Before the plaintiffs law- yers and the media began their criticisms, there was an interesting article that appeared in the July 1985 edition of the New York State Journal of Medicine, the article quoted among others, Joanne Shellenback, the Director of Press Relations with the American Cancer Society in New York. She said of CTR and I quote, "They are legitimate. We are very critical of the tobacco industry in terms of their advertising prac- tices and many of the things that they do but here is an area where they seem to be doing something by the book in promulgat- ing good research. So I can't criticize them across the board." Do you think that CTR has been unfairly criticized recently? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir, and I think it is by inference that we are supporting smoking which is certainly the furthest thing from the truth. We are an independent agency, we have the respect of medi- cal investigators and institutions across the country and through- out the world. We are regarded as a good source of funding particu- larly for young people with fresh new ideas and approaches to the questions of basic biomedical investigation that are so fundamental to our understanding of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and others. I think the statement from the American Cancer Society is en- tirely in keeping with the reputation we hold in the medical com- munity. Mr. BLILEY. You mentioned In your written oral statement that three researchers funded in part by CTR have received Nobel prizes in physiology on medicine. Could you name them? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. I think I mentioned Dr. Stanley Cohen of Vanderbilt University for his work with epithelial growth factor. The second was Dr. Barry Nazerath of Harvard University, who really was the father of modern molecular biology. And the third Nobel prize winner was Dr. Harold Varmus, currently the Director of the National Institutes of Health. Mr. BLILEY. Beyond the three researchers funded in part by CTR that have received Nobel prizes, can you qive this subcommittee some idea of the quality of the research which has been funded by CTR? Mr. GLENN. Well, I think the quality speaks for itself. As you pe- ruse the annual reports you will see that we have moved to the cutting edge of basic biomedical research. I think the quality is tested by some of the examples I gave in my opening statement of individuals who have made major breakthroughs in our under- standing of basic disease process.

i However, you must understand that our review process and the selection of grantees to be supported is a very critical mechanism. We receive well over 1,000, close to 1,200, inquiries and applica. tions per year. We are able to fund only a minute portion of those total inquiries and applications. So we are really-we really are picking the cream of the crop it would seem. I think our judgment has been borne out by the succession of the investigators. Mr. BLILEY. What is the publication policy of CTR? Mr. GLENN. We encourage all investigators to publish everything that they wish to publish. We have never discouraged publication. I would cite as an example the fact that we were approached by Dr. Edward Campbell of the University of Utah recently. Dr. Campbell is one of our grantees and he is working on the problem of emphysema. He has identified a genetic defect that leads to an alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency and in those individuals perhaps represent- ing some 3 to 5 percent of patients with emphysema, this enzyme deficiency predisposes them to emphysema. He inquired of us whether he should publish these results, and we said, most certainly you should publish those results. Those are the individuals who are most susceptible to emphysema and cer- tainly those who should be kept away from the risk factors such as smoking. Mr. BLILEY. There has been recent criticism that the research funded by CTR doesn't have anything to do with cigarette smoking and health. Does your experience support this criticism? Mr. GLENN. No, sir, we are supporting very fundamental re- search into molecular and cellular biology, genetics and immunol- ogy which are the fundamental questions that must be answered before we can address questions of therapy and social habits. Mr. BLILEY. It has been claimed that research has been chan- neled or funneled into CTR special projects so that adverse results could be suppressed from publication by claiming that they were subject to the attorney-client privilege. I understand that many publications resulted from CTR special projects. I also understand that all of the privileged documents were reviewed by speciall master Joel A. Persono who was ap- pointed by Judge Sarokin and who later became a United States magistrate judge. In the special masters report he states, and I quote, "The research projects themselves were conducted by inde- pendent scientists affiliated with a variety of academic and re- search institutions who were not applied by or related to the to- bacco industry. These researchers were permitted to publish the re- sults of their research with credit given to the CTR." Is that consistent with your understanding? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. BLILEY. I also understand that some researchers who re- ceived CTR special projects funding were co-funded by other fund- ing agencies and that a lot of this research waa published in peer review journals and acknowledgment to special project support was re9uested; is that right? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. I would point out that special projects were projects that were desirable for our sponsors. However, our sci- entific director reviewed these projects for scientific accuracy, for methodology, edghe CTR then served merely as the funding agen- cy for such projt However, your first-initial statement is correct. Some 250 peer- reviewed articles were published as a result of the various special projects that were accomplished. Mr. BLILEY. Some of what people are claiming here today doesn't make sense. If a researcher was being funded by both the Federal Government and a CTR Vecial project grant, how could CTR pre- vent publication? Mr. GLENN. We couldn't, Mr. Bliley. You can't prevent a bio- medical investigator from doing anything he wants to do. He cer- tainly will publish at his discretion. We wouldn't presume to tell him not to publish. On the contrary, we have encouraged publica- tion. Mr. BLILEY. Would you submit a list of publications and presen- tations which are believed to have resulted from CTR special projects for the research? Mr. GLENN. Would I submit such a list? Mr. BLILEY. Obviously, you can't do it today but the record will be open, and I am sure the Chairman will keep it open for that. Mr. GLENN. It is available to you, Mr. Bliley. We have submitted our annual reports for the last 30 years, which I am sure that much of it to people who are in different professions and even to me on occasion must look like Greek, but I think if you will ask competent biomedical investigators, authorities in the field to re- view the research reported in these annual reports you will see the very high quality of the research that has been done. Mr. WAxIvIAN. Will you submit to this committee for the record a list of all the research funded under the special projects? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir, we will cooperate with you in any way. [The following information was received:] As I explained in my testimony, Council Special Pri, ects were research projects that the Council's sponsors wished to fund. Tr. at 46. These research projects were funded by the sponsors, and were administered by the Council, separately from the grant-in-aid program. We have ppared a list of all Council Special Projects for which the Council has a file. That listre includes the following information for each such project (where such information is available from the Council's files or from published sources): (a) the name of the principal investigator or investigators; (b) the institution or institutions With which the principal investigator or investigators were associated; (c) the title or subject matter of the Council Special Project; (d) the dates of funding of the Council Special Project; (e) the total amount of funding provided by the Council; and (f) a list of the publications that apparently resulted, or may have resulted, from the Council Special Pro,'eet Some of the publications identified on the list appear in the Council a Special Projects files; others have been collected from other sources. In a number of instances, it is not clear whether a particular publication resulted from Council Special Project funding. My statement at the May 26 hearing that 250 peer-reviewed articles are believed to have resulted from Council Special Projects was based on my information about the number of publications that either were in the Council's files or have been col- Icctcd from other sources. Several clnriffcations should be made to that statement FIrst, our list scts forth over 400 articles or presentations that resulted or may have resulted from Council Special Projects; so far. I understand, copies of about 250 of these articles or presentations have been obtained, and that underytanding was the source of my statement at the hearing. Second, most but not all of these 250 articles or presentations were peer-reviewed. Third, abstracts relating to Council Special Projects publications were not included in the Council's Annual Reports. We expect to provide this list to you promptly after we have reached an under- standing with the subcommittee staff with respect to procedures for the subcommit-

I n i E tee's handling of such materials provided by the Council. In the interim, I respect- fully request that this letter be included at pages 47 and 106 of the May 26 tran- script. Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. Mr. BLILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I further understand the documents related to CTR special projects research including proposals, interim reports, final reports, and publications have been produced to plaintiffs counsel in discov- ery in some cases. Is that correct? Mr. GLENN. That is correct. Mr. BLILEY. Thank you, Dr. Glenn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bliley. Mr. Synar. Mr. SYNnrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Dr. Glenn. Let me go back to something Mr. Waxman was questioning you about. The Wall Street Journal on Thursday, February 11, stated the Council's role has never been just research and it was largely a creature of Hill and Knowlton, the public rela- tions firm. Do you deny that? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. SYNAR. How does that square with the fact that in a 1954 memo, Exhibit 10 in front of you-do you have it? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. This is the first time I have seen it, Mr. Synar. Mr. SYNAR. All right. That is interesting, Dr. Glenn. Usually when you take over a cor- poration as someone who is going to run it, one of the first respon- sibilities is to learn the history of the corporation and to learn the corporation's inner workings over the years. You are telling us you have not taken that time to do that? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Synar, I have taken over a number of organiza- tions in my career and I am well aware of the procedure. This is a Hill and Knowlton internal document. Mr. Sntax. But it is from the founder of Hill and Knowlton to the chairman of the CTR. The paragraph says, attached are budget estimates for oper- ations of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee during the cal- endar year 1955, which would be the first year of its creation. Then it goes into the next paragraph, as you can see, the budget for the staff operations provides for 35 different staff members of the Hill and Knowlton Corporation. Now, doesn't that fly in the face of your answer to Mr. Waxman that the Hill and Knowlton operation was separate from CTR, since the budget shows that it was fully funded by CTR? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Synar, I am not sure of the thrust of your ques- tion. Mr. SYNAR. Were you- Mr. GLENN. Hill and Knowlton documents are hot in our files. Mr. SYNAIt. The point is Hill and Knowlton was basically CTR, were they not? Mr. GLENN. No, sir, on the contrary from the beginning CTR was composed of independent scientists serving on a Scientific Advisory Board. Mr. WAxMAN. If you would yield to me, that document was writ- ten to the head of the Council for Tobacco Research. I don't. know why it wouldn't be in your files, but it was written by Hill and Knowlton to your committee and I presume paid for by the Council. Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxmon, I think you are presuming a lot. This is a confidential memorandum internal to Hill and Knowlton. It mentions the CTR but it is not in our files and there was no way I can know that nor do I know who paid for this. Mr. WAxMAN. This one does not indicate that it is confidential. Mr. GLENN. I am sorry. Mr. WAXMAN. It doesn't indicate- Mr. GLENN. Are we looking at Exhibit 9? Mr. WAxMAN. No, 10. Mr. SYNAR. Exhibit 10. Mr. GLENN. Again, I can't speak to this because I have never seen it until this moment, but it would appear to me to be a Hill and Knowlton internal document. Mr. WAxMAN. Would you confirm for us that Mr. Timothy Hart- nett was the chairman of the Council for Tobacco Research? Mr. GLENN. I can't confirm that to you, no, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. Have you ever heard of him? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. WAxMAN. You never heard of him. OK. Mr. Synar. Mr. SYNAR. Dr. Glenn, you are proud of your scientists on your board. Have any of these Nobel prize winners done research in the area of tobacco or how it affects health? Mr. GLENN. The Nobel prize winners? Mr. SYNAIt. Yes, that serve on your board. Mr. GLENN. The Nobel prize winners that I mentioned, Mr. Synar, are former grantees of the Council for Tobacco Research. Mr. SYNnIt. Let me move on. A review of the Council- Mr. WAXMAN. Just before we go too far I do want to indicate for the record that the annual report, 1963-1964, from the scientific di- rector of the Council for Tobacco Research indicates that Timothy V. liartnett is the chairman, W. T. IIowe is the executive director, and Clarence Cook Little is the scientific director. Mr. GLENN. I was not aware of Mr. Hartnett. Doctor-Clarence Cook Little was the first scientific director, very distin •uished man, president of the University of Minnesota, founded thear Harbour Library, credited with establishing the basis for fundamental lab- oratory animal research. Mr. WAxMAN. I am sure Mr. Hartnett was also quite distin- guished. He was chairman of the Council and did receive that memo from Hill and Knowlton. Mr. Synar. Mr. SYNAR. Dr. Glenn, answer my question, did any of these grantees, the Nobel ~rize winning crew, do research on tobacco and how it affects health. Mr. GLENN. Mr. Synar, every one of them has done fundamental research to help us understand underlying disease process. t~ t bib,.

Mr. SYNAR. I didn't ask you that. Mr. GLENN. I know you didn't ask me that, Mr. Synar, but what you asked me was very naive. Mr. SYNAR. Did they do research in tobacco research and how it affects health, yes or no? Mr. GLENN. Yes. Mr. SYNAR. Will you provide that for the record? We would like to see it. Mr. GLENN. I would be glad to provide the papers published by these Nobel prize winners. Mr. SYNAR. In the area of tobacco and how it affects health. [The following information was received. Documents referred to hereinafter in these responses have been retained in subcommittee files.] As I testified on May 26, the Council has funded three investigators who have won Nobel Prizes: Dr. Baruj BenaceralT of Harvard University, Dr. Stanley Cohen of Vanderbilt University and Dr. Harold E. Varmus of the University of California at San Francisco. Dr. Benaceraff, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1980, received a Council grant from 1972 through 1974 for investigating "Control of Specific Cellular and Hu- moral Immune Responses to Neoplastic and Non-neoplastic Tissues." Item A in the Appendix•includes three publications acknowledging the Council's support of Dr. Benaceraffs research. Dr. Cohen, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1986, received a Council grant from 1987 through 1993 for investigating "The Role of Lipocortin in the Cellular Re- sponse to EGF." Item B in the Appendix includes six publications acknowledging the Council's support of Dr. Cohen's research. Dr. Varmus, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1989, received a Council grant from 1984 through 1986 for investigating "Functional Analysis of Cellular Oncogenes Activated During Tumorigenesis." Item C in the Appendix is a publica- tion acknowledging the Council's support of Dr. Varmus' research. As I explained to the subcommittee on May 26, the Council-funded research by these Nobel laureates was basic biomedical research aimed at improving our under- standing of fundamental disease processea-which is the kind of research that is now believed to further scientific understanding of the effects of tobacco use on health. Dr. Benaceraff conducted pioneering research into the humoral immunological response of the host when presented, attacked or Invaded by can- cerous vowths. His work has provided important insights into how regulatory mechanisms may operate in defense of the host organism. Dr. Cohen etudi.ed cell growth factors and their role In regulating growth and ditferentietton. His investiga- tion oC genetie wntrola of growth factors opened the door to our understanding of meehenisms by whieh normal cells beeome eancerous. Dr. Varmus pioneering work with oncogenes made importent eontributione to our ovcrell underotanding oC how healthy cells beeome transformed into cells that can no longer control their growth and therefore become cancerous. Mr. GLENN. Mr. Synar, one does not have to specifically inves- tigate tobacco as a product- Mr. SYNAR. Dr. Glenn, you just said under oath that they did have expertise in research in tobacco and health-related issues with respect to tobacco. Is that correct? Mr. GLENN. Fundamental understanding of basic cellular and molecular biology is the basis for understanding scientific truth which will then let us understand the specifics of a vehicle such as tobacco. Mr. SYNAR. That is a very convenient way to say that they are not conducting tobacco-related research, isn't it, Dr. Glenn? Mr. GLENN. No, Mr. Synar, it is not. VVI Mr. SYNAR. Let's go on to the review of the Council for Tobacco Research published in the July issue of the American Journal; Ex- hibit 19, if the staff will provide that to the Doctor. Doctor, let me quote from Exhibit 19 from the American Journal. "Most of the CTR-funded grant supports biomedical research not related to health consequences of smoking. In a recent survey of principal investigators ft knded by the CTR grants in 1989 almost 80 percent of the respondents indicated that none of their research, current or past, examined the health effects of smoking. "Furthermore, the vast majority of industry-supported research that addressed the health affects of smoking produced findings con- sistent with the Surgeon General's conclusion that smoking is a major cause of numerous diseases." Are you aware of those findings, Dr. Glenn? Mr. GLENN. I am aware of Dr. Warner's article. Mr. SYNAR. Do you agree with the central conclusion? Mr. GLENN. What is his conclusion? Mr. WAXMAN. The conclusion that the CTR research is not relat- ed to the health consequences of smoking. Mr. GLENN. What was the- Mr. SYNAR. That is what the statement is, that the CTR research is, quote, "not related to the health consequences of smoking." Do you agree with that? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. BLILEY. Can these documents be made available to the mem- bers? We don't have them. Mr. WAXMAN. We will get them to you immediately. Mr. SYNAR. Do you know Dr. Brennan? Is he not a member of your Scientific Advisory Board? Mr. GLENN. Yes. Mr. SYNAR. In an article, "Pack of Lies", a BBC documentary, Dr. Brennan is quoted as saying that during his service on the Sci- entific Advisory Board, "very little of the CTR research is related to determining the relationship of smoking to ill health." Dr. Brennan goes on to say in this BBC documentary that, "cer- tainly less than Vio of the funds awarded are awarded for the sci- entific study of tobacco-related effects." Is Dr. Brennan correct? Mr. GLENN. He is correct in the sense that we-I have spent mil- lions of dollars in the past in supporting studies where experi- mental animals were exposed directly to tobacco smoke and that sort of thing. It was very unrewarding. As the Surgeon General's report will point out to you, there has never been an instance in which lung cancer was observed in animals exposed to intense to- bacco smoke. It was an unrewarding avenue of research and we focus now on molecular and cellular aspects, as I have explained. That is what Dr. Brennan was alluding to. Mr. SYNAR. So the quote that, certainly less than one-tenth of the funds of the CTR awarded are awarded for specific study of to- bacco-related effects; you are saying only 10 percent of the budget has anything to do with tobacco? Mr. GLENN. When he says specifically related to tobacco prod- ucts, he is talking about research with nicotine, talking about-

Mr. SYNAR. No, he didn't say specific tobacco-related products, he said tobacco-related effects. Mr. GLENN. That would include nicotine. Mr. SYNAR. Are you familiar with your Council report of 1993? Mr. GLENN. I am. Mr. SYNAR. Out of the 296 studies in your index, where you fund- ed about $19.5 million in grants; as I see from the index or.Jy 10 or about 10 of the projects have anything to do with tobacco. Do you dispute that? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. SYNAR. So you don't devote much research to cigarettes or the death of the 434,000 Americans a year, do you? Mr. GLENN. Because, Mr. Synar, medical research in general has taken the turn towards basic fundamental understanding of cell regulation and deregulation. Until we understand these processes, we cannot explain any diseases. And our research is at the fore- front, along with that of the National Cancer Institute and the Na- tional Institutes of Health and the various other private funding agencies. Mr. SYNAR. Dr. Glenn, has the Council for Tobacco Research con- ducted vr financed research that has found that smoking cigarettes or using oral tobacco increases the likelihood of a person developing lung cancer or heart disease? Mr. GLENN. I didn't hear your question, sir. Mr. SYNAR. Has the CTR conducted or financed research that has found that smoking cigarettes or using oral tobacco increases the likelihood of a~person getting lung cancer or heart disease? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. SYNAR. Will you provide that for the committee? Mr. GLENN. Yes, air, it is provided in the annual reports that you already have at hand. Mr. SYNAR. Dr. Glenn, has the Council for- Mr. WAxMAN. Just a moment, we want to receive specifically fr ~eywill hold the rrecord op ns butf we want a specific r spo se to that question. Mr. SYNAR. You will provide that full report? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. [The following information was received:] At the hearing, I was asked about studies funded by the Council that found that tobacco use increased the likelihood of disease. With all due respect, this request is extremely naive, and therefore very difficult to respond to meaningfully. Modern scientific studies into the etiology of chronic diseases typically focus on narrow ques- tions, the answers to which contribute to a broader understanding of disease proc- esses. However, ae a general matter, each such study, standing alone, does not atate that smoking does or does not make the chronic disease more likely. The reported research findinge have implications for the relationship between smoking and dis• ease that are far more subtle, complex and cumulative. Conaequently, in many instances, it is difficult to determine-and it ultimately iq a subJCcllve tnatter--w}retlrer a publicntknr In d-;mnad lo havn foturd nn iucrcanrd likelihood of disease. Indeed, I believe that any two persona who might review Ulc full set of publications resulting from the Council's grants in response to this re• quest would come up with different sets of documents. As I stated on May 26 in response to this request, abstracts of publications resulting from CTR grants and contracts have appeared in the Council s annual reports, and we can make the pub- lications themselves available to the subcommittee for its review. With these qualifications, we are providing in the boxes marked "Box I" and "Box 2" copies of over 375 publications resulting from Council-funded research that could be considered to indicate that tobacco use may increase the likelihood of developing diseases or conditions that have been associated with smoking. (These documents were selected from the Council's files of publications resulting from Councilgr ante. Those files are not complete since not all publications have been provided by the researcher or located in the Council.) We have used our best efforts to compile for the subcommittee a complete set of such publications, in light of the difficulties re- ferred to above. In addition, yls order to reduce the burden on the subcommittee, we are not providing copies of publications that simply rely on or refer to previous re- search findings associating smoking and diseases, and in a number of instances we are not providing copies of publications that are preliminary to, or repetitive of, pub- lications that are being provided. Mr. SYNAR. Dr. Glenn, has the CTR conducted or financed any research into the matter that nicotine is addictive or has an addict- ive quality to it? Mr. GLENN. We have sponsored a very large amount of research into nicotine. We have been very concerned about the question of addiction. We have funded researchers who have established the habituation of nicotine. We have not been able to establish addic- tion. Indeed, we asked Dr. Jerome Jaffe, Director of the Addiction Center at the National Institute of Drug Abuse to address our Sci- entific Advisory Board on this question in 1989. Dr. Jaffe and our Scientific Advisory Board had a lengthy exchange. Dr. Jaffe was unable to assign properties of addiction as they are classically defined to nicotine. We have continued to pursue the question and are doing so now. Indeed, a large part of this conference that is taking place here in Washington today deals with nicotine and nicotinic receptors. I think the committee should know that the central nervous system, the function of the central nervous system and myoneural junctions depend upon two sorts of chemical receptors. They are classified as muscarinic and nicotinic. Perhaps the word "nicotinic" is unfortunate but nicotine and nic- otine analogs we derive from the various foods that we eat, to say nothing of nicotine that might be in tobacco is critical to normal neural function in the human being. Mr. SYNAR. Just a couple things on that very one point. Dr. Jaffe is a member of the National Institute on Drug Abuse that did find that nicotine is addictive, is he not? Mr. GLENN. Dr. Jaffe is-was at the time he appeared before us the Director of the Addiction Center for the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Mr. SYNAR. All right. Now beyond Dr. Jaffe, let me repeat this question very clearly. Have you conducted or financed research that has found nicotine is addictive or has an addictive quality to it? Mr. GLENN. We have definitely established that there is habituation to the use of nicotine. We have not established addic- tion. Mr. SYNAR. Will you provide for the record all of the reports and studies with respect to nicotine and its addictiveness? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. SYNAR. Thank you.

1 ) n Mr. WAxIrtAN. Mr. Synar's question was have you financed stud- ies on nicotine and nicotine addiction. You then answered that you have concluded it is habituating. Have you financed studies? Mr. GLENN. I misspoke, Mr. Waxman. I didn't conclude, the in- vestigators concluded. We funded the projects. Yes, sir, extensive. Mr. WnxMArr. You will give us details of those studies. Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. WAxMAIV. In fact, the studies themselves? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. [The following information was received:] The two boxes of documents marked "Box 3" and "Box 4" contain copies of over 660 publications resulting from Council-funded research that appear to examine the effects of nicotine. (As explained above, the set of publications Crom which these doc- uments were selected is incomplete.) Again, we have used our best efforts to compile for the subcommittee a complete set of such publications. As I mentioned during my testimony on May 26, during the week of my testimony the Council sponsored an important seminar on central nervous system receptors, including the receptors that respond to nicotine and its analogues. Item I in the Ap- pendix includes copies of the program from that seminar and of the abstracts pre- sented at that seminar. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Greenwood. Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good-morning, Dr. Glenn. Mr. GLENN. Good morning, Mr. Greenwood. Mr. GRSErrwGOD. In all of my questions I am going to be refer- ring to the February 11, 1993, Wall Street Journal article. The article notes that the Supreme Court last year said smokers can sue, accusing the industry of deliberately hiding or distorting smoking dangers. Can you inform us as to what the record of those suits has been, the number of such suits filed, and whether your organization been a defendant in those suits? Mr. GLENN. In the two suits mentioned in this article? Mr. GREENWOOD. I am asking a more general question. Has your organization been sued as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling that the industry has deliberately been hiding or distorting smok- ing dangers? Have you been a defendant in such a suit? Mr. GLENN. The Council for Tobacco Research has been named defendant in a number of tobacco-related actions. Mr. GREENWOOD. Can you tell us about the status of those cases? Have any drawn to conclusion yet? Mr. GLENN. There have never been adverse findings against the Council for Tobacco Research. Indeed, in the Cipollone case the court found that activities of the Council for Tobacco Research were essentially irrelevant to the action at issue there. Subsequently Judge Sarokin issued a statement relative to the Haynes case in which we were not named as a defendant citing some 1,500 secret documents of the CTR as reported in the press. That simply was not true. The 1,500 documents must belong to somebody e se because they certainly didn't belong to us. Mr. WAXMAN. So you are saying in one case the court found for the Institute as the defendant, is that what you said? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. And have there been cases where the courts have found for the plaintiffs? 0/1 Mr. GLENN. Not against the Council for Tobacco Research, no, sir. Mr. GREENWOOD. OK There has been a lot of questioning about the freedom of the researchers who have been funded by the Insti- tute, freedom to pursue their research as they would be directed scientifically and freedom to publish. Are those assurances contrac- tually guaranteed to the researchers? Do they have contracts with the Institute that say`blearly, you are in charge of directing the course of this research and, second, you are entirely free to pub- lish? Mr. GLENN. There was no contract per se but in the grant award letter every grantee, there is a paragraph to the effect you are en- couraged to publish your results. We look forward to receiving re- prints of your publications and that message is reiterated to grant- ees repeatedly. Mr. GREENWOOD. Have you made those letters available to the committee yet? Mr. GLENN. I can-I am not sure that we have, Mr. Greenwood. I would be happy to provide them. Mr. GREENWOOD. If you would give us a sample of those. (The following information was received:) Item D in the Appendix is a copy of a form letter, with attachments, that is pro- vided by the Counci) to successful grant applicants. One of these attachments, "Im- portant Procedural Information for Granteee", refers specifically to publicatione by grantees. Item E in the Appendix is the Council's Statement of Policy, which ie sent to all grant applicants. The Statement of Policy makes It clear that the Council ex- pecte granteee to report their findings in medical and scientific journale, and re- quests that any publications acknowledge the Council's support. Our Statement of Policy also says, in very clear terms: "The Council desirea to have scientists work with the greatest freedom, without domination of any kind. It will make no attempt to direct the administration of a pro~'ect once started, to influ- ence its course or to control ite reeulte ..." That ie the Council'e fundamental pol- icy: to give complete scientific freedom to ite grantees, and to let the chips fall where they may. Mr. GREENWOOD. The question of the independence of the re- searchers that receive yourgr ants further comes into question in the Wall Street Journal article. I will quote, "for both men defying conventional wisdom has been rewarding; Dr. Seltser says he has received well over $1 million from the Council, Dr. Sterling got $1.1 million for his special projects works, the 1977 to 1982 court records show." Can you inform this committee how the level of the grants com- pares with normal practice? Were your grants particularly high? Was there any attempt by the Institute to make sure that sci- entists were not so well paid for their research that they felt they would be inclined to feel that they couldn't receive grants as lucra- tive elsewhere? Mr. GLENN. Most of our grants are much smaller in nature. The average Frant from the Council for Tobacco Research is of the mag- nitude ot $75,000 to $80,000 per year for 3 years. However, there are projects that are deemed of such importance that we have given prolonged funding to them. The classic example of this is the research done by Dr. Lynch in the epithelium cancers. We have supported Dr. Lynch for many years because the NIH did not see fit to do so. It is now proving to be a gold mine of basic information about genetic disorders and their relation to disease.

373 372 V' n. "~i {`j So, yes, some of the grants have run to very large numbers sim- ply because of the protracted nature of support. Mr. GREENWOOD. When you provide a grant to a university or to a research laboratory, does the Institute control the amount of grant that can be taken by the individual researchers for their sal- aries? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. We do. We regard-in general, the salary of the investigator is to be a responsibility of the institution. We try in as many instances as possible to limit financial support to support personnel such as lab technicians, to the purchase of sup- plies, experimental animals, publication costs, so forth. So it is unusual for an investigator to receive any or even a sig- nificant part of their salary from the grant. Mr. GREENWOOD. OK. Another quote from the Wall Street Journal article, "Today Dr. Hamburger adds that Mr. Jacob-and I assume Jacob is from the law firm-told him he would never get a penny more if the paper was published without making the changes." This went to the issue of a study that was done by Dr. Ham- burger years later at the Rose Cipollone tobacco liability trial in Federal Court in New Jersey. The issue is whether the researchers could use the term "cancer." Apparently the allegation in the arti- cle is that the law firm representing the Institute did not want the researchers to use the term "cancer", they wanted them to use more obscure medical terminology. Dr. Hamburger allegedly re- sisted that and claims he was told by Mr. Jacob that his refusal would end his funding. What is your response to that allegation? Mr. GLENN. First of all, I didn't know Dr. Hamburger and I didn't know Mr. Jacob. But I do know the circumstances. Dr. Hamburger was a grantee of the Council for Tobacco Re- search. He was working on the induction of lung tumors in ani- mals. His work was very nonproductive. He was able to produce only a superficial change in the epithe- lium of the lung never any tumors. As a consequence, the Sci- entific Advisory Board declined to extend his funding. lie was fund- ed I think for some 6 years. But the work was nonproductive and they did not renew his grant. I think his statements may reflect some bitterness at the fact that his funding was not continued. He was not successful in get- ting funding from an)r other agency. Mr. GREENWOOD. How do you respond to that part of his allega- tion that says that he was asked not to use the term "cancer" in his research but to use- Mr. GLENN. Because our Scientific Advisory Board could not con- firm that he had induced cancer; only superficial chanpes. Mr. GREENWOOD. Another quote from the article, 'By 1968 the Council had begun putting researchers under contract for many studies. This gave it the right to control both the studies design and publication of the results." I believe in response to an earlier question that I asked, you indi- cated that there were not contracts, they were in fact grant letters. There seems to be an inconsistency. Mr. GLENN. No. Contract research was done. It was not a promi- nent part of the activity of the Council for Tobacco Research. As I am informed, there were some contract studies in years past. There are none today. In years past, there was a major contract with microbiological as- sociates, and some several million dollars were spent in exposing laboratory animals directly to tobacco smoke in an effort to prbduce tumors. It was an unsuccessful effort. It went on for a number of years and finally the Scie~ntific Advisory Board, which had over- sight over this contract research, decided that it was inappropriate to continue with the research and the contract was terminated. It ran through its end. It simply was not renewed. Mr. G1tE1;Nwoou. Did that contract contain within it terms speci- fying the relative amount of freedom of the researchers to direct the research or their freedom to publish? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir, as a matter of fact a major publication re- sulted from that Micro-Biological Associate's research work. Mr. GREENwooD. So the contract did specify that the researchers were in control of the direction of the research and were free to publish their findings as opposed to the contract specifying that the Council would determine the course of their science and whether or not they could publish, is that correct? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. To my knowledge there never was no re- striction. I think a number of publications by Micro-Biological Asso- ciates resulted from that work. Mr. GREENWOOD. Could you make a copy of that contract avail- able to this committee? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. [The following information was received:] Item G in the Appendix includes copies of each of the Council's contracts with Microbiological Associates, Inc. ("MAI"), together with contract renewals. The Coun- cil spent some $12 million under the MAI contracts on a large-scale, long-term study of the efCects of smoking inhalation on mice. I was mistaken when I told the subcommittee that these contracts contained no restriction on publication by MAI. The Council has had no research contracts during my tenure, and I had erroneously assumed that the Council's Qolicies with reapect to publicntiun hy coutract researcl~era .vern the aame aa its `~ol~ciet with rerpect to publtcnUan by bratlttlte. tilnct n1y ttnUaloqv, 1 hava Itarned thnt tht 71tAI c.~ntracts provided that t!m l ouncil'.r prior written approval was required for AtAI to publish its research findings. Such Provisions are customary in research eontracts. It is my undcrstandin~ that the results of thc mqjor inhnlntion etudy performed by MAI were published in complete and unedited form. In eddition, b1AI published dozens of articles based on its Council-Cunded research. Item 11 in the Appendix is a list of 89 publications or abatracts that appear to have resulted from the Council's support of MAI, at least 73 of which acknowledge support from the Council. Mr. GREENWOOD. Finally, Mr. Chairman. Another quote from the article: "But lawyers from Jacob Mettinger told Micro-Biological the project would go no further. When a contract is canceled given these kinds of results, Dr. Henry says, reasonable scientists might conclude the liability issue must have suddenly become apparent to this group." You already disputed the use of the terminology contract being canceled, you said it simply was not renewed. Was it in fact the case that the decisions about whether such a contract would be continued was made by lawyers from Jacob Mettinger or was that decision made by the Council? Mr. GLENN. To my knowledge-again, Mr. Greenwood, I was not thert-but to my knowledge what I have been told, Scientific Advi- V..' S, L

.~.:~ "7 sory Board determined that they had spent several million dollars, it was nonproductive, and they could put the funds to better use in other activities. Mr. GREENwoOD. So it is your testimony that the lawyers from Jacob Mettinger simply were the conveyers of information from the Council to the researchers, that they did not participate in the deci- sion-making mode as to whether the contract would be continued or how the course of the research would go? Mr. GLENN. I have no direct knowledge of that. I believe that to be the case. Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you,-Mr. Chairman. Mr. WAXbtAN. Thank you, Mr. Greenwood. Mr. Wyden. Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Glenn, do you know a gentleman named Mr. Addison Yeaman? Mr. GLENN. No, sir, I don't know him. Mr. WYDEN. You have no knowledge of him? Mr. GLENN. I know of him. I do not know him. Mr. WYDEN. I thought since you lived in Kentucky and I under- stand he spends a fair amount of time in Kentucky also, that you may have spoken several times over the years? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. I have never met Mr. Yeaman, I have never talked to him. Mr. WYDEN. OK. Do you know a woman by the name of Dorothea Cohen? Mr. GLENN. I don't know her, Mr. Wyden. She was terminated as a librarian at the Council about the time I joined the Scientific Advisory Board. Mr. WYDEN. So you have no recollection of any discussions with her on various tobacco issues over the years? Mr. GLENN. No, I have never discussed it with her. I am sure the committee knows Ms. Cohen is very ill. Mr. WYDEN. That is not what I asked you. I wanted to know about two individuals and whether or not you had any discussions with them. The first was Mr. Addison Yeaman. You have told us under oath that you do not know Mr. Yeaman nor have you had any discussions with him. Is that correct? Mr. GLENN. That is correct. Mr. WYDEN. And the same is true for Ms. Cohen? Mr. GLENN. That is correct. Mr. WYDEN. Thank you. Could you cite a particular research report funded by your orga- nization which argues there is a causal relationship between to- bacco use and lung cancer? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Wyden, I cannot because I cannot accept the causal relationship. Causal relationship in medicine and science is a 1-1 proposition. If one were to encounter the tuber bacillus nrid they get tuberculosis, that is cause and effect. 'hhu industry nnd the Council for Tobacco Research freely acknowledge the risk factor of smoking. Nobody denies that. We certainly recognize it. The vast bulk of our research has been directed towards some disposition of that particular problem. We cannot accept the term "cause" in a scientific sense. V1J Mr. WYDEN. I ask because one would think that as an allegedly objective organization, you might possibly have funded just one paper that argued the kind of causal relationship that virtually every unbiased medical organization in our country argues exists. You have told us you have not funded one, and we accept- your word. Mr. GLENrt. Mr. Wyder~, I reject the premise that we are a bi- ased-I reject the premise'that we are a biased organization. I re- ject the premise that smoking causes cancer. I reject the inference that the purpose of our activities has been to obscure the truth. On the contrary, they have been dedicated to developing scientific truth. Mr. WYDEN. Well, is it true that you do not agree with all of these organizations? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. WYDEN. The Surgeon General, the American Medical Asso- ciation, and the World Health Organization have all talked about the causal link between tobacco use and these illnesses. Let me ask you another way since you cannot cite us any report that addresses this causal link. What percentage of your recent research has even looked at the causal links between smoking and cardiovascular problems, emphy- sema, and cancer? Mr. GLENN. If you accept cause in the lay sense, I would say all of it. If you use the term "cause" in the scientific sense, I would say none of it. We are looking for the underlying problems that predispose indi- viduals. For example- Mr. WYDEN. You just said that if you look at it in a scientific sense-these are your words, not mine-and your organization is a scientific organization, you have not done any research to exam- ine these causal links. Mr. GLENN. Mr. Wyden, obviously I didn't make my point and I apologize for that. Mr. WYDEN. Please feel free to elaborate. This is an opportunity for you to set the record straight. Mr. GLENN. No one has been able to demonstrate that smoking per se causes any diseases. It is clear that it is a risk factor, and we all knowledge that. Nobody can live in this world today without recognizing that smoking is a risk factor for lung diseases, cardio- vascular diseases, perhaps for many things we don't even know about yet. On the other hand, what we have got to find out is why the cell goes wrong. If it is exposed to this environmental agent, tobacco smoke, what makes the cell go wrong? We know, for example, that 93 percent of smokers smoke for years never developed any lung disease, 7 percent do. Why is there that vast discrepancy? Why do some people escape this Injury completely? That really is what we address our research to. Mr. WYDEN. Do you believe that smoking causes cancer? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. WYDEN. Do you believe smoking is addictive? Mr. GLENN. No, sir.

I f (i r 37b Mr. VYDEN. Do you realize your opinion stands alone in compari- son with all of these major medical groups that I have cited? We are talking about isolation. We are not talking about some sort of- Mr. GLENN. Mr. Wyden, I am not isolated as a scientist. If you asked scientists to give you a scientific opinion about cause and ef- fect, you will find that I am in the vast majority. The risk factors of smoking are well-known. Nobody is arguing about that. What I am trying to impress on you is that there are much more fundamental issues here in the matter of predisposition to various disease processes that must be elaborated before we can address other fundamental issues. As to the matter of- Mr. WYDEN. I don't know how an issue gets more fundamental than looking at questions of cause, effect, and addiction. You told me from a scientific standpoint that you don't even look at any pos- sible connection between smoking and disease, and I think that is an extraordinary statement for an organization like yours to make. This leads me to the additional area I want to explore, which is, in my view, that you are a public relations shop essentially posing as the National Cancer Institute. You have said to my colleagues again and again that you are doing all this scientific work. You just told me that you have not done any recent studies to look at the causal links between smok- ing and disease, and I would like to now ask you what kinds of ac- tivities you perform in a public relations sense. Certainly Ms. Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that you were a public relations shop and a lobbying shop. I quote her, "The Council for Tobacco Re- search is just a lobbying thing. We were lobbying for cigarettes." Do you perform public relations functions or lobbying functions? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Wyden, I won't respond to your editorial but I will respond in the matter of Ms. Cohen. Ms. Cohen has multiple sclerosis. It is an established medical fact that people with this se- vere debilitating neurologic disease develop mental problems as well. Since making that statement to the press, Ms. Cohen has called our office and tearfully apologized for her statements. I am very sorry for the lady and I really don't think her name ought to be invoked in this Congressional subcommittee. Mr. WYDEN. In your opinion, at the time that she made these statements to the Wall Street Journal, she was not capable of being ob,'ective or truthful? Mr. GLENN. That was her statement to our staff member. Mr. WYDEN. All right. Could you get us anything that would doc- ument that? I have not seen anything that would suggest that she re~udiated it at any time when she was capable of doing so. The following information was received 1: At the May 26 hearing, I was asked to supply documentation for my statements about Dorothea B. Cohen, the former Council employee to whom comments were at- tributed in the Wall Street Journal article of February 11, 1993. We had intended to respond to the subcommittee's request for documentation by obtaining an affida- vit from Ms. Cohen, setting forth her view that the Wall Street Journal article was inaccurate. However, Ms. Cohen has moved, and we hove been unable to locate her. We have spoken with Dr. John E. Bevilacqua, Ms. Cohen's treating neurologist (who is also her cousin.) 377 Dr. Bevilacqua has provided us with a letter dated August 20, 1994, describing Ms. Cohen's medical condition as of that date and as of February 11. 1993, when the Wall Street Journal article appeared. Dr. Bevilacqua has asked that his letter be treated as confidential, in deference to Ms. Cohen's privacy interests. We expect to provide Dr. Bevilacqua'a letter to the subcommittee promptly after we have reached an understanding with the subcommittee staff with respect to prticedurea for the subcommittee's handling of materials provided by the Council. In the in- tcrim, I respectfully request that my letter be included at page 78 of the May 26 transcript. 1 I have learned that I was mistaken when I testified on May 26 that, following the publication of the Wall Street Journal article. Ms. Cohen called the Council and apolog~'zed to one of our employees for the statements attributed to her in the arti- cle. What happened was that shortly after the Wall Street Journal article was pub- lished, Ms. Cohen was contacted on our behalf and said that she had been mis- quoted in the article. The fact that Ms. Cohen had stated that she had been mis- T ted in the article was reported to an officer of the Council, who in turn reported t to me. As a result, I formed the mistaken impression that Ms. Cohen had called the Council, but my basic understanding about what she did say was correct. Mr. WYDEN. Let me ask you about one other area, Mr. Glenn. Have lawyers from any of the tobacco companies that fund your re- search ever attempted to exert influence on research in progress? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. WAxMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wyden. Dr. Glenn, you gave a very precise scientific answer to Mr. Wy- den's question about the link between cigarette smoking and all these diseases like cancer, emphysema, and heart problems. But if I asked you as a scientist in an independent organization for your recommendation to me as an adult whether I ought to smoke or not, if I am concerned about those diseases, do you advise me to smoke or not? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, you know, I have been asked that question by many patients who suffer from diseases that are known to have smoking as a risk factor and I would tell you what I have told all of them. For example, a patient with a bladder can- cer. There is the implication that by-products of smoking may ag- gravate bladder cancer. I tell those patients spontaneously without them asking that I think they ought to stop smoking since it is a risk factor. Mr. WAxMnN. If I was asking for general health advice, do you think that people ought to smoke or not? Mr. GLENN. I think people ought to have free choice. It is a legal g roduct as is alcohol and other substances. I think they should ave the information and I think that the information is readily available both in the scientific community and the lay community. Mr. WAxMAN. I am not asking you for what public policy ought to be and whether people ought to be permitted to smoke. I am asking you from you as a scientist and health expert what Your recommendations are. Do you think people ought to smoke? Mr. GLENN. I think that is a very simplistic, Mr. Waxman. Do I think people ought to drive automobiles at 140 miles an hour on the interstate? Clearly there are risk factors involved in everything We do every day. I think every patient should- Mr. WAxMnN. I assume, then, you would tell people that they ahouldn't smoke at 140 miles an hour? If you are willing to tell them that about speeding, would you also be willing to tell them that you think that they ought not to

l f6t smoke because it is taking an inordinate risk, that they may well get cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and bladder cancer, and all these other problems? Mr. GLENN. I come back to what I have said before, 93 percent of people who smoke never develop lung problems. On the other hand, I know perfectly well, and I tell patients, 80 percent of the people who die of lung cancer have been smokers. The interesting aspect is that 20 percent of people who die of lung cancer have never smoked. Mr. WAXMAN. Dr. Glenn, I suspect that you have strong views of your current mission of CTR. Can you share with us what you see that mission to be? Mr. GLENN. I see our mission to be one of elaborating fundamen- tal mechanisms of diseases and we have found that the specific re- search into exposing animals to cigarette smoke is superficial and nonproductive. Mr. WAXMAN. My staff is telling me that since we are starting a second round of questions, if you want to take a break we can take a short break now. Mr. GLENN. I am perfectly happy, thank you, sir. Mr..WAxMAN. OK. Could you help us in understanding how CTR is funded? I believe the original budget in 1954 was $1 mil:ion. Is that correct? Do you know? Mr. GLENN. I believe it is, Mr. Waxman. I forget. Mr. WAXMAN. The current budget is $19 million. Mr. GLENN. Nineteen million five hundred fifty thousand dollars. Mr. WAXMAN. Where does the money come from? Mr. GLENN. Comes from the five major sponsor companies. Mr. WAXMAN. From 1994, what was the method of apportionment of funding among your member companies and what are the actual dollar amounts? Mr. GLENN. I can't tell you the actual dollar amounts from each company, but roughly the contributions of the companies are based upon their market share, a formula that they derived years ago. Mr. WAXMAN. Would you give us for the record that information, and all past budgets and the share each company paid for each year of your or$ anizations existence? Mr. GLENN. 1 am sure we can develop that. [The following information was received:) We have prepared three separate tables setting forth the dollar amounts contrib- uted in each year, by each contributor, to the Council and to the Tobacco Industry Research Committee ("TIRC") for the General Fund, for Council Special Projects% and for the Council's Literature Retrieval Division ("LRD"). (I understand that LRD was a division of the Council from 1971 until 1983, that LRD compiled medical lit- erature for the use of the tobacco companies, and that LRD'e assets were trans• ferred in 1983 to LS, Inc., a corporation that is unrelated to the Council.) This fl- nancial information is non-public, and the Council's members regard it as confden- tial. We expect to provide these tables to the subcommittee promptly after we have reached an understanding with the subcommittee staff with respect to procedures for the subcommittee's handling of materials provided by the Council. In the in• terim, I respectfully request that this letter be included at page 82 of the May 26 transcript. We have collected copies of the audited financial statements of the Council and its predecessor for each year from 1963 through 1993. (In 1983, the Council chang,ed from a calendar year to a November 1 fiscal year.) We have also collected coP!h of budgets for each year from 1954 through 1962; we are unable to locate finanusl statements from before 1963. Again, this financial information is non-public, and ory the Council and its members regard it as confidential. We expect to provide these tables to you promptly after we have reached an understanding with the sub- committee staff with respect to procedures for the subcommittee's handling of mate- rials provided by the Council. In the interim, I respectfully request that this letter be included at page 82 of the May 26 transcript. Item F in the Appendix is a copy of the Council's current by-laws. Article III of the by-laws provides the method oC apportioning the funding of the Council among its sponsors. Mr. WAXMAN. What i8 the tax status of the CTR? Mr. GLENN. We are a not-for-profit organization. Mr. WAXMAN. With regard to your organizational structure-you are in charge of the organization, is that correct? Mr. GLENN. That is correct. Mr. WAXMAN. Can you tell the subcommittee what the Commit- tee of Councils is? Mr. GLENN. What the Committee of the Council is? Mr. WAXMAN. Or Councils. Mr. GLENN. I am not sure I understand the question. Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I have heard there is a Committee of Coun- cils. I want to know does it function within CTR or is it an inde- pendent organization? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, I don't recognize the term at all. Mr. WAXMAN. You don't know what that is? Mr. GLENN. I will be glad to explain our organizational structure, but I don't understand that question. Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Can you make research funding decisions without first obtaining specific approval from anyone else? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. Have you ever done this or are you aware of any instances where the chairman has done this? Mr. GLENN. Where the chairman has made the decision? Mr. WAXMAN. Right. Mr. GLENN. I am sure you understand that our Scientific Advi- sory Board really is the decision-making board and it functions much like a study section of Federal Government organizations, Al- most identical. Mr. WAXMAN. Is that also known as the Scientific Liaison Com- mittee? Mr. GLENN. I don't know that term, Mr. Waxman. Mr. WAXMAN. OK. So you have never heard of a Scientific Liai- son Committee, but there is a Scientific Advisory Board, is that correct? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Maybe it would simplify things, Mr. Wax- man, if I were to tell you that the Council for Tobacco Research, of which I am president, chairman and CEO, consists of 15 individ- uals, 5 of them hold PhD's or equivalent degrees in basic medical sciences; the remainder of the staff are largely clerical in their ac- tivities. Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask you on a different topic, do grantees and contractors get paid directly by CTR or is payment made by individual tobacco companies? Mr. GLENN. Grantees of the Council for Tobacco Research are not reimbursed directly. The institutions that they represent become tion~antee and they, the institutions, are responsible for distribu- of these funds. That process is identical to that of the NIH.

380 Mr. WAxN1nN. The institutions, you mean the universities or- Mr. GLENN. The universities, or the research institute. Mr. WAXMAN. Are those institutions rid by CTR or are they paid by the individual tobacco companies. Mr. GLENN. By CTR. Mr. WAXMAN. And how many people work for or are under con- tract to CTR at the present time? Mr. GLENN. Under contract? Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. Mr. GLENN. We have no contracts at the present time. We have independent research grants but no contract research at the present time. Mr. WAXMAN. How many of your employees are legal staff? Mr. GLENN. None. Mr. WAXMAN. How many, not counting the Scientific Advisory Board, are physicians and scientists? Mr. GLENN. Not counting the Scientific Advisory Board, six in- cluding myself. Mr. WAxMAN. And will you provide for the record the past and present personnel roster with divisions by areas of job responsibil- ity for each year from 1954 to the present time? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. [The following information was received:] We have prepared a list setting forth the names, years of employment and the current (or termmel) position of employees of the Council end T1RC from 19b4 to the present. I should advise you that while our staff expended considerable time and the piete in toWly ac.cursteilbecaaee the C unc'Iblre orde for thie 40 y r period are ein- complete. In deference to the privacy interests of the persons whose names appear on this list, we regard it as confidential. We expect to provide this list to the subcommittee promptly after we have reached an understanding with the subcommittee staff with mater the Con cil in the interim~I epec>>ymrequeet that lthie 1 tter be nials cl provided an the May 26 transcript. Mr. WAXMAN. In 1993, what percentage of CTR research and what percentage of CTR research funds involves projects directly relevant to the health hazards of smoking and can you provide in- formation for us for each past year? Mr. GLENN. Well, our mission, Mr. Waxman, is to investigate the areas relating to tobacco and health and all of our research can be said to be relevant to that issue. Mr. WAXMAN. And how much is directly related to health haz- ards of smoking? Mr. GLENN. Again, Mr. Waxman, I am repeating what Mr. Wyden asked me and that is that all of the research can be related to issues of tobacco and health. Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Bliley asked you for a submission for the record of publications from presentations resulting from CTR's spe- cial projects, and Mr. Greenwood I think made some similar re- quests. You said in response to Mr. Greenwood you were not holding any special projects documents. Would you give us all documents in your possession relating to special projects, including grant applica- tions, ~rant reviews, all correspondence with the recipients of these grants. 381 Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, the special projects were not submit- ted as a regular grant. Therefore, we have no grant application. These were projects that were deemed worthy of pursuit by our sponsor companies. We were asked to be the administrative servic- ing agent only. So we don't have grant applications in the true sense. We know the nature of the project but they do not go through the regular granting process and they do not impact upon our research budget. As I further said, there are no special projects at the present time either. Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to draw your attention to Exhibit 18, if staff would make that available to you. This exhibit is a series of letters written from scientists to to- bacco industry lawyers, including the firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon seeking research grants. For instance, the first letter is from Dr. Eleanor MacDonald. She is submitting a budget to enable her to complete work on environmental factors that cause death, dated June 27, 1977, and she seeks $88,773 to complete the work. Did the Council fund these projects after the lawyers approved them? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, this was in 1977 and that precedes my time. These are not records from our files so this is entirely new to me. I really can't comment authoritatively about it. It appears to me to be a letter from an investigator who was accomplishing a special project but that is really all I can tell you. Mr. WAXMAN. We have Exhibit 16 which is the list of CTR spe- cial projects. Let's be sure that you have that exhibit. The first page exhibits that Dr. Eleanor MacDonald received a grant of $88,773 in August 1977 from the CTR special projects, 2 months after she wrote the lawyers at Shook, Hardy & Bacon. One would think either this is a coincidence or demonstrates that law- yers were actually reviewing and approving CTR special projects. What do you think? Mr. GLENN. It would not surprise me at all. Attorneys are called upon as expert witnesses and expert investigators all the time. I have been called many times as an expert witness in medical mal- practice actions, and it doesn't surprise me that the attorneys might have recommended a contract with an investigator. Mr. WAXMAN. Why wouldn't the Science Advisory Committee be reviewing this? Why would lawyers be reviewing it? Mr. GLENN. Because it is outside the purview of the Scientific Advisory Board. I don't know the nature of the project. I have not seen this document until this moment. Mr. WAXMAN. Of course this is CTR money that is being used to fund the special project. Mr. GLENN. It is industry money, Mr. Waxman, and we merely acted as the administrative agent in funding the research. The companies and the attorneys I am sure do not have any par- ticular expertise in dealing with university finance offices which are unique. Mr. WnaclvlnN. Why wouldn't the tobacco companies do this on their own? Why would they use you as an intermediary? Why would they engage in this device? ~ 84 •528 95 - 13 li

y 70 P-a Mr. GLENN. I don't know why they chose to do that, Mr. Wax- man. Mr. WAxmAN. Why would CTR want to cooperate? Let me read to you from the Los Angeles Times of today; in 1978 memos to top B&W executives-they were told that CTR solved a huge legal quandary involving the industries' need to both fund re- search and be able to dismiss adverse findings, and they are avoid- ing this research dilemma to a responsible manufacturer of ciga- rettes which on the one hand needs to know the state of the art and on the other hand cannot afford the risk of having in-house work turn sour. The point here is the value of having CTR doing work in a nondirected and independent fashion as contracted work either in- house or under B&W contract which if it goes wrong can become the smoking pistol in a lawsuit. So this seems to indicate that the companies used you or your organization as a way to have a deniability for that research which could come back to haunt them in lawsuits. Is that an accurate statement? Mr. GLENN. I don't think so. The nuances escape me a little bit. But let me put it to you this way. Any time the CTR served as the administrative agent for special projects, we informed the recipient of those funds that should they publish they should acknowledge that this was a special project funded through the Council for To- bacco Research. That tag line appeared on their publications so it was different from a research grant. This was-this was essentially contract work and we served as the funding agent only. Mr. WAXMAN. Why wouldn't they acknowledge on their document that the company actually funded them? Mr. GLENN. In many instances as I understand it-this is before my time-several of the companies might have joined in funding a specific project. We were the funding agency. Mr. WAXMAN. What I read to you from the LA Times was a memo from the general counsel of Brown & Williamson explaining that this is what they were doing, they are trying to get by this legal quandary. Mr. GLErrN. I can't respond to that. I have just seen the memo- randum-the article. Mr. WAuvtAN. Why don't you look it over. We are going to have to take a break, you may have heard the bells ring, to respond to a vote on the House Floor. We will do that and return as quickly as possible to continue our inquiries. [Brief recess]. Mr. SYNAx [presiding]. Doctor, if you could join us at the table again, please. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for questions. Mr. BLILEY. Thank you. Dr. Glenn, why did the companies not conduct special project re- search in-house, do you know? Mr. GLENN. No, sir, I don't know. Mr. SYNAR. Hit your microphone, Doctor, so we can hear you. Mr. GLENN. No, sir, I don't know. Mr. BLILEY. Dr. Glenn, I am not a scientist but I was intrigued by your testimony about the current focus of CTR research at the molecular level in your belief that the keys to unlocking the mys- teries of chronic diseases is to be found by this research. Would you tell us some more about how your views compare with those of other scientists? Mr. GLENN. I think my views are consistent and consonant with the views of other scientists. One of the most significant things being done in medical science today is the human genome project to which our government has devoted a great deal of money and effort. In essence, once the human genome is decoded we will be able to identify the genetic- genetically normal patterns and the deviations from the normal patterns that predisposes us to a lot of diseases. A theoretical pos- sibility is that we could identify people who are subject to some dis- ease in the future, and we could either genetically alter their gene's chromosomes or we could advise them about avoiding the risk fac- tors that might predispose them. It is a very exciting thing. Perhaps by the turn of the century we may have some very posi- tive answers in this area. Mr. BLILEY. Dr. Glenn, has CTR-funded research produced re- sults which indicate connections or possible connections between smoking and disease? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. BLILEY. During your tenure, has CTR had a public relations function? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. BLILEY. Don't other funding organizations have PR func- tions? Mr. GLENN. Well, to the extent that they engage in fund-raising activities, we don't do that because we are funded by the industry. The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, do indeed have extensive public relations efforts, and it is entirely ap- propriate that they do that, because they are raising money from the general public in order to engage in research projects. Mr. BLILEY. I noted, Dr. Glenn, in my opening remarks, my con- cerns both about the misapprehension that can result from quoting excerpts from documents out of context and the difficulty of accu- rately developing the facts before this committee since we were not provided until the last minuto with the documents that will be shown to witnesses. In a very short time I have had to review the Majority staff re- port and its attachments. I note other documents not mentioned by other members of this committee that should be brought to the public's attention. In particular, I am going to read from Exhibit 8, which is a Hill and Knowlton memo dated July 31, 1954. It seems to me pretty clear that from the beginning CTR was to be involved in relevant research into tobacco issues and health. And I will now begin to read. "In mid-December, 1953, executives of leading tobacco companies decided some kind of joint action was imperative in the face of widely publicized attacks alleging a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Representatives of Hill and Knowlton, Inc., were ~ ~

1 384 invited to meet with these executives for consultation on ways and means of dealing with the problem. "At this first meeting, it was agreed that the wisest course of ac- tion would be for the industry to find out through objective re- search what truth there was, if any, in the charges being made against it. Mr. Hill stated it would be a serious public relations mistake for the industry to make any move that could cause it to be accused of disregard of people's health and under no cir- cumstances could the industry afford to engage in direct con- troversy with its detractors. With the acceptance of these prin- ciples, Hill and Knowlton, Inc. was asked to recommend a program to implement them. "After 2 weeks of intensive study of the problem,'public relations counsel developed a step-by-step program which was discussed at a meeting with a small group of public relations representatives of a number of tobacco companies. Valuable suggestions were made at this meeting and the program was put into final shape and submit- ted to the principals at another meeting the last week in December. "Taking into consideration court rulin~ inhibiting the industry from ordinary trade association activtties, the program rec- ommended: "One, formation of an industry group to be known as the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, dedicated to sponsoring and financ- in research into all phases of tobacco use and health. "Iwo, establishment of a Scientific Advisory Board, to be com- posed of distinguished research scientists and educators, and a sci- entific director to guide the research objectives. "Three, undertaking of continuous editorial research into rel- evant scientific, statistical, and medical material, past and current, for an effective information program. "Four, keeping the public informed regarding the committee's ac- tivities. As a first step, the newspaper advertisement outlining the industry's plans was proposed, copy for which was submitted. '"The program and the public statement advertisement were ap- proved. The agreed-upon approach was to sponsor genuinely objec- tive research and to bring to public attention the fact that there is now no conclusive proof that cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer and other serious problems of human health." And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WAxMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bliley. Mr. Synar? Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Glenn, which law firms presently represent CTR, or do you have in-house counsel? Mr. GLENN. Debevoise and Plimpton. Mr. SYNAR. So you have outside counsel? Mr. GLENN. Outside counsel. Mr. SYNAR. What are the duties of the counsel? Mr. GLENN. What are the duties of the counsel? Mr. SYNAR. Did you have inside or outside counsel? Let me ask that general- Mr. GLENN. We have outside counsel, Debevoise and Plimpton, and their duties are to address any legal issues which effect CTR• Mr. SYNAR. Do you have in-house counsel? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. 385 Mr. SYNAR. OK. Now, do the outside counsels get to see any of the CTR research results before the research results are an- nounced? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. SYNAR. OK. So they see it only afterwards? Mr. GLENN. If they see it at all. Mr. SYNAR. OK. In the past has that been the case? Mr. GLENN. To my knowledge. Mr. SYNAR. Could it be, could it be that they have been able to review it prior to? Mr. GLENN. Prior to? Mr. SYNAR. Releasing the results. Mr. GLENN. I don't know, Mr. Synar, but I would think not. Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Glenn, your memory is very selective today. Mr. GLENN. Dr. Glenn, Mr. Synar. Mr. SYNAR. Dr. Glenn, your memory has been very selective dur- ing this hearing. You seem to not remember anything prior to 1987. Will you make available all materials that are central to this hearing prior to 1987 for subcommittee review? Mr. GLENN. We will cooperate. Mr. SYNAR. I didn't ask you that. Will you provide all of the ma- terials available in the files of the CTR for this subcommittee? Mr. GLENN. All of the materials that you request will be pro- vided. Mr. SYNAR. I am asking you for all of them. Mr. GLENN. I don't think you want all of them, Mr. Syn ar. Mr. SYNAR. I want all of them. Will you provide those for the committee? Mr. GLENN. We will cooperate fully with the committee. We will provide whatever you require. ('1'he following information was receivedJ At the hoarinlt, Mr. 3vnar nsked me to provide "all matorials that are crntral to this hearing prior to 1087" and "all of the materials available in the tCouncll'sl files." Tr. at p. 98. 1 responded that the Council would cooperate fully "and would provide whatever you require." Tr. at p99. I did not understand Mr. Synar to be asking for every piece of paper in the Council's files. Rather. I thought he was hav- ing me confirm that we would be responsive to the subcommittee's requests. Indeed. I have no way of knowing what documents Mr. Synar regards as "central to this hearing." And it certainly would not be feasible for the Council to produce all of its files to the subcommittee. We estimate that those files include over 2.5 million pages, and I respectfully submit that it would serve no purpose to deluge the sub- committee with documents beyond those that the Council has already gathered in response to the subcommittee's broad requests. I respectfully request that this letter be included in the record. Mr. SYNAR. The FDA, Dr. Glenn, is currently very interested in the content of tobacco products and its effects on health as you can see from some of the previous hearings that we have had. If the Food and Drug Administration requests any studies that the CTR has conducted or funded for nicotine or any other ingredients con- tained in tobacco will you freely provide those studies and related documents to the FDA? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. SYNAR. Thank you. Do you know a Dr. Leo Abood, who is a member of your board of directors? Mr. GLENN. Doctor? Mr. SYNAR. Abood.

.4 AOU Mr. GLENN. Yes, indeed. Mr. SYNAR. Are you familiar with his work on nicotine analogs? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. Mr. SYNAR. Why doesn't the CTR sponsor a nicotine analog or even more research based on nicotine since you have this very val- uable doctor on board who could evaluate and supervise the re- search? Mr. GLENN. I don't understand your question, Mr. Synar. Mr. SYNAR. You have an expert on staff in this area. Why don't you sponsor or fund research in that area so that he could help you evaluate it? Mr. GLENN. You are asking me a negative. We have sponsored agr eat deal of research on nicotine. Mr. SYNAR. On the nicotine analogs? Mr. GLENN. And nicotine analogs. Mr. SYNAR. OK. You have described your background and medi- cal training. Would you discourage your grandchildren from smok- ing7 Mr. GLENN. I would present them with the facts at an appro- ~ priate time, and I recognize that parents and grandparents often don't have any control over the actions of their children. But would I certainly- Mr. SYNAR. What are those facts, Dr. Glenn, that you would give your grandchildren? Mr. GLENN. I have told my children and I would tell my grand- children that smoking is a risk factor for a number of diseases. I would also tell them it is an expensive habit. Mr. SYNAR. Would you encourage them? Mr. GLENN. Encourage them what? Mr. SYNAR. To smoke? Mr. GLENN. I would encourage them to make an intelligent deci- sion. Mr. SYNAR. So you would neither encourage nor discourage? Mr. GLENN. On the contrary. I would tell them the facts; I would encourage them to make an intelligent decision. It is a personal de- cision. You can't decide for them. Mr. SYNAR. Would you say that the facts might indicate that they shouldn't smoke? Mr. GLENN. I would say that if I were presented with the facts about smoking today that I would choose not to smoke. I can't say what my children would do. Mr. SYNAR. You have some impressive academic and publishing background credentials. You published I think close to 400 articles. Your field is urology, correct? Mr. GLENN. Correct. Mr. SYNAR. What was the background of your predecessor? Mr. GLENN. My predecessor in what? Mr. SYNAR. As chairman. Mr. GLENN. As chairman? Mr. SYNAR. Yes. Mr. GLENN. Mr. William D. Hobbs was the previous chairman. He was a former officer of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Mr. SYNAR. So he was not a medical physician? Mr. GLENN. No, sir, he was not. 001 Mr. SYNAR. Could you help me? What does a urologist know about conducting tobacco research? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Synar, I am a medical administrator. I am also a scientist. I have done bench research. I have done a lot of clinical medicine. There is not much difference between research into uro- logic problems and research into other problems. The fundamental techniques of biomedica~research are fairly universal. Mr. SYN.~t. So that is what qualifies you in the area of tobacco research? Mr. GLENN. I am qualified to administer a program of research. I don't accomplish research myself in these areas. But I am very qualified to administer a research granting program. Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Synar. Mr. Wyden? Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Glenn, does your- Mr. GLENN. Dr. Glenn, Mr. Wyden. Mr. WYDEN. Dr. Glenn. Mr. WAxN1AN. And this is Congressman Wyden, Dr. Glenn. Mr. WYDEN. Does your operation offer a system for storage of files? Mr. GLENN. I misunderstood the question, Mr. Wyden. Mr. WYDEN. I am interested in knowing whether your organiza- tion has a system for storing studies, for example, studies done by researchers, your grantees on other researchers. Do you have a sys- tem for storing this? Mr. GLENN. We have a system for storing all of the information relative to the grants that we make, to the reports that the various investigators send us periodically, to papers that are published by those investigators. Extensive file system. We maintain these files for indefinite periods of time. I hope that is responsive to your question. Mr. WYDEN. It is. You store research, CTR research, and presum- ably some research done by other scientists as well. Mr. GLENN. The Council for Tobacco Research doesn't do any re- search, Congressman Wyden. Mr. WYDEN. Your grantees do, is that correct? Mr. GLENN. The grantees do it. And the specifics of their inves- tigations are maintained in their files. What we store are their in- terim reports to us and any papers that are published, but we do not, for example, maintain a file of their laboratory journals or manuals. Mr. WYDEN. Who has access to this stored material? Mr. GLENN. Anyone. Mr. WYDEN. Anyone? Mr. GLENN. I- Mr. WYDEN. The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times can come on down and see your storage and information retrieval system? Mr. GLENN. Well, that would pose a significant burden and I think we would have to ask counsel whether that is appropriate. Mr. WYDEN. Could this committee come down and see it? Mr. GLENN. Well, we have agreed to provide you with any infor- mation that you want from our files.

S JOb 389 Mr. WYDEN. Then access is not in any way limited. This commit- tee, the newspapers and all of the scientific organizations that have interests in this could look at your research files in a consistent, orderly fashion? I am coming down, because I would like to see it. Can I arrange to see what is in your files? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. We would welcome you. Mr. WYDEN. All right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wyden. Dr. Glenn, this is what we would like from you on the record. We want a list of all of the special projects, a copy of the research re- sults, any correspondence between CTR and the tobacco companies, and/or the researchers regarding any of these special projects. The dollar amount spent on each of the special projects; the itemization of whether and where each special project was published, or if it was published at all; and any other documents in your possession relating to special projects. Mr. GLENN. Yes, I understand. Mr. WAXMAN. You will cooperate with us and get those to us? Mr. GLENN. Yes, sir. [The following information was received:) We have gathered 14 boxes of documents, consisting of about 30,000 pages, from the Council's files on Council Special Projects. The vast majority of these documents are from files that are arranged alphabetically by the name of the principal inves- tigator or, in some cases, the investigator's inetitution. There are also documents from files containing financial information about Council Special Projects and docu- ments from Special Project desk files of certain Council employees. Approximately Ys of these pages consist of applications and pre-publication reports by researchers, or evaluations of a researcher or of his or her research. We believe that the informa- tion that is reflected in these documents was provided to the Council with a reason- able expectation of confidentiality, and we therefore regard these documents as con- fidential. . We expect to be able to provide all these documents to you promptly atter we have reached an understanding with the subcommittee staff with respect to procedures for the subcommittee's handling of materials provided bY the Council. In the in- terim, I respectfully request that this letter be included in the May 26 transcript. In addition, I am advised that there are 54 documents from these Council Special Project files that are subject to claims of attorney-client privilege, attorney work- product protection or joint defense privilege asserted by the Council or its sponsors. We do not intend to provide 51 of these documents to the subcommittee, and we intend to redact the other three. None of these documents constitutes a researchers' report of his or her results or findings. (As stated above, the Council has not as- serted any privilege with respect to such results or findings; and my understanding is that none of the Council's sponsors have done so.) No communications with scf- entific researchers are being withhold on privilege or work-product grouuds. (Subcommittee Note: On October 19, 1994, the Council for 'robacco Itesearclk sub- mitted to the eubcommittee the liet of special projects administered by the Council. This list is part of the public record of the hearing and is available for public review in the office of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the oltce of Rep- Henry A. Waxman.) Mr. WAXMAN. Now, in the Haines case Judge Sarokin said he had 1,500 CTR documents in his possession. Will you provide any of these Haines documents that are in your possession, and will you ask the tobacco companies for them and then submit them to us? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, you will have to ask the tobacco com- panies. None of the 1,500 documents to which Judge Sarokin re- ferred were CTR documents. None of them. Mr. WAXMAN. They were identified as CTR documents. Mr. GLENN. I am sorry? Mr. WAxMAN. They were identified as CTR documents. Mr. GLENN. By the press. I think if you will read the judge's statements, you will find that there is some ambiguity. These were documents apparently referring to CTR, but none of these docu- ments were a part of our files at CTR. None of the 1,500 documents to which he referred are in our files or were ever in our files. Mr. WAXMAN. Do youknow of any reason why a committee of the Congress shouldn't have those documents? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, again, that is something that you can deal with the sponsor companies about. Mr. WAXMAN. My question is, do you know of any reason why they shouldn't be given to us? Mr. GLENN. I don't even know what the documents are, Mr. Wax- man, so I can't respond to that. Mr. WAXMAN. Then how do you know they are not CTR docu- ments. They are from before your time as chairman. Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, I assure you, they are not documents from the CTR. Mr. WAXMAN. And how do you know that? Mr. GLENN. I know that because we have examined this issue as carefully as possible, and- Mr. WAXMAN. Who is we? Mr. GLENN. We internally, the Council for Tobacco Research and its staff in conjunction with counsel. Mr. WAXMAN. And have you been able to identify these docu- ments? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. Then how do you have knowledge of these docu- ments if you haven't been able to identify these documents? Mr. GLENN. I have knowledge of them only from what I read in the paper. Mr. WAXMAN. You just told me that characterizations by the paper of CTR documents were not accurate. Mr. GLENN. It is not accurate. Mr. WAXMAN. And you know that not to be accurate because you reviewed these with your attorneys and perhaps others. Is that cor- rect? Mr. GLENN. Correct. Mr. WAXMAN. So how do you know what the documents arn or are not? Mr. GLENN. As I said, Mr. Waxman, we reviewed this internally with our staff and we were further advised by counsel that these were not our documents and were not a part of our files. Mr. WAXMAN. Then you have not seen the documents? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. Has your staff seen the documents? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. Have your lawyers seen the documents? Mr. GLENN. I can't answer that. I- Mr. WAXMAN. Then how can you tell us what these documents are or are not? Mr. GLENN. I have told you- Mr. WAXMAN. You told me all you know about it is what you read in the newspaper. You said the newspapers, however, have identi-

fled them as CTR documents incorrectly. How do you know it is in- correct? Mr. GLENN. It is incorrect, I am advised by our own staff and by counsel that these documents were not CTR documents. Mr. WAXMAN. How do they know? Mr. GLENN. How does counsel know? Mr. WAXMAN. How do your staff and your counsel that is advis- ing you know that? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, I don't get the thrust of the question. I am simply stating to you a fact, and these arc Mr. WAXMAN. You have told me they have not looked at the doc- uments. Have they or have they not? If they have not, how can they know whether they are CTR documents or not. Mr. GLENN. I don't know how counsel can know this, but I accept their reassurance as it stands. They are not our documents. Mr. WAXMAN. Now, if they are your documents, would you urge that we receive them? Mr. GLENN. I have no objection one way or the other, Mr. Wax- man. They are not our documents. I will be happy to review the documents if you like and tell you whether or not they are CTR documents piece by piece. Mr. WAXMAN. Well, we would like that and we accept that offer. That would be very helpful. And will you ask the tobacco companies, or you obviously asked them for them, ask them to receive those documents so you can re- view them, and then will you submit them to us if they are CTR documents? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. I think that is your prerogative, but it is not mine. Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I am asking you to get documents that are CTR documents. Mr. GLENN. They are not CTR documents, Mr. Waxman. Mr. WAXMAN. If they are CTR documents after you review them, will you ask the tobacco companies to make them available to us and will you make them available to us? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, I don't have the documents. They are not CTR documents. I don't know where this 1,500 CTR documents business came from. But they are not our documents. Mr. WAXMAN. It comes from the judge in the case. The judge in the case said they had 1,500 CTR documents. Mr. GLENN. They are documents that perhaps relate to CTR, but they were not in our files. They are not a part of the CTR records. They are not CTR documents. Mr. WAXMAN. How could they relate to CTR? Mr. GLENN. I don't know. Mr. WAXMAN. You just said that you heard that they relate to CTR. Mr. GLENN. They may carry a message that says Council for To- bacco Research in it somewhere. I don't know. Mr. WAXMAN. Well, a few minutes ago you told us that your peo- ple did a very careful review of these documents and you know that they are not- Mr. GLENN. No, I did not say we reviewed. I said we did a careful review of our files and I did a careful inquiry of our staff, and I also submitted the question to counsel, and I am reassured by ev- eryone that none of the alleged documents are from our files. They may relate to CTR, but they are certainly from someone else's files. Mr. WAXMAN. If they do relate to CTR and you then find that to be the case, will you submit them to this committee? Mr. GLENN. I don't have the documents, Mr. Waxman. Mr. WAXMAN. Well, you are going to ask the tobacco companies for the documents. . Mr. GLENN. No, sir, Ilam not. That is not my prerogative. Mr. WAXMAN. Then how are you going to review them for us? Mr. GLENN. I will be glad to if you will submit them to me. Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I don't want to play games with you. Mr. GLENN. I am not playing games. Mr. WAXMAN. You just said a few minutes ago that you will re- view the documents and if they are CTR documents, you will sub- mit them to us. How are you going to review these documents? I presume you will ask the tobacco companies for them. Mr. GLENN. I assumed that you would submit them to me. I would be happy- Mr. WAXMAN. Why would you presume that? Mr. GLENN. From your statement, Mr. Waxman. Mr. WAXMAN. My statement was that I was going to submit doc- uments to you? My statement was, will you ask the tobacco compa- nies for these documents. Mr. GLENN. And I said no, I will not ask the tobacco companies for the documents; I think that is your prerogative. The documents are not my documents, and they are the property of someone else. Mr. WAXMAN. You don't know whether they are your documents or not. Mr. Wyden? Mr. WYDEN. Thank you. If you will just excuse me, I think this is an area maybe we can resolve this way. Do you consider these documents relating to special projects part of CTR files? Mr. GLENN. I don't know which documents you are talking about, Mr. Wyden. If there are documents in our files relating to special projects, we will be happy to provide them. Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WAXMAN. Dr. Glenn, do you know whether these 1,500 docu- ments exist? Mr. GLENN. No, sir, I frankly do not. Mr. WAXMAN. OK. You indicated to me a few minutes ago you are going to review them one by one and see whether they are CTR documents. Mr. GLENN. I would be glad to if you would submit them to me. Mr. WAXMAN. Well, you know, this is a key point. These docu- ments, 1,500 documents, are being kept from the public. I don't know whether they have been kept from you, but they relate to you, they have been described as CTR documents and I think that once they are known to the public, they are going to be pretty damning. Now I don't see you willing to cooperate with us in getting those documents. Are you willing to ask the tobacco companies to clear your organization? To give Congress the information that the pub- lic ought to have, or are we being stonewalled and being told we ~ "4,~

n are not going to get the documents because you are not willing to help us get those documents presuming you don't already have them and you are just refusing to give them to us? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, let me be as plain as I can. The docu- ments are not CTR documents to my knowledge. I do not have ac- cess to the so-called 1,500 documents. They are the property of someone else. I don't know whose property they may be. I have not seen the 1,500 documents; I would be happy to review them if you submit them to me and tell you whether or not they relate to inter- nal activities of the CTR. But I think-other than that, I really can shed no light on the issue for you. Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Dr. Glenn, let me just tell you, I am going to submit some questions to you for the record and we may have to have an additional hearing on this very point. I want to ask you about special accounts. In preparing for this hearing, we have discovered references to a CTR account called Special Account Number 5. Does this account support scientific re- search, and who has or had control over this account, and will you provide the subcommittee with a list of the individuals who re- ceived funding from this account, the amount of funding, and the purpose of funding? Mr. GLENN. We will. Mr. WAXMAN. Can you answer any of those questions now? Mr. GLENN. I have no idea what Special Account Number 5 is, Mr. Waxrnan. Mr. WAXMAN. OK Well, we believe this was a lawyer-adminis- tered special projects fund, but we will get a chance to find out whether that is accurate or not when you submit it to us. I would like to know what is Special Account Number 4. Does this account support scientific research? Who has or had control over this account? And will you provide the subcommittee with a list of the individuals who received funding from the account, the amount of funding and the purpose of funding? Mr. GLENN. We will, and we will cooperate with you. Would you identify what special account 4 and 5 might be? I don't know. Mr. WAxlvtnN. Well, we will try to provide further clarification and ask you to cooperate with us. [The following information was received:] I was asked on May 26 to provide information about "Special Account Number 4" and "Special Account Number 6." No such accounts are currently maintained by or for the Council, and so far as we can determine no such accounts have ever been maintained by or for the Council. I respectfully request that this letter be included in the record. Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Dr. Glenn, I thank you for your presentation here today, and as I indicated, we may have you back. But let me just review what I think we have learned today, not just from your testimony, but from documents that we have put on the record. The Council for Tobacco Research was started by public relations people, conducted public relations activities such as promoting re- search results favorable to the tobacco companies. It funded special grojects, but did not control the selection. It acknowledged that to- acco companies selected and controlled the special projects. It ac- knowledged that lawyers for the tobacco companies may have se- lected the special projects for the tobacco companies. I want to indicate that in my view this paints a disturbing pic- ture of public relations masquerading as science, and we will look forward to further clarifications to hopefully disabuse us of some of these facts. But I think the documents that we have already put on the record establish much of that case and are really troubling as to whether this is a scientific inquiry as it has been represented. I thank you very much- Mr. GLENN. Mr. Waxman, may I ask a question? Are you im- pugning my integrity? Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Dr. Glenn, you represent the Council of To- bacco Relations. You don't know much about what went on before you got there. We introduced documents that indicated the kinds of things that were done by the Council. And it didn't just stop be- fore you got there. In 1990 there was a letter to kids at school that indicated-this was a statement that I will submit it to you as Ex- hibit 15, if we can get that over to you. A letter written by RJR Tobacco Company in 1990 to the principal of the Willow Ridge School in Amherst, N.Y., and RJR is responding to the questions of fifth graders about the health risks of smoking. I don't know if you are familiar with that letter. Are you? Mr. GLENN. No, sir. Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Well, I am going to read to you what they say. I am quoting. "The tobacco industry is also concerned about the charges being made that smoking is responsible for so many seri- ous diseases. Long before the present criticism began, the tobacco industry in a sincere attempt to determine what harmful effects, if any, smoking might have on human health established the Council for Tobacco Research. Over the years the tobacco industry has given in excess of $162 million to independent research on the con- troversies surrounding smoking. "Despite all of the research going on, the simple and unfortunate fact is that scientists do not know the cause or causes of chronic diseases reported to be associated with smoking. The answers to these many unanswered controversies surrounding smoking we be- lieve can only be determined through much more scientific re- search." Now, this letter illustrates how the tobacco industry uses the Council for public relations purposes to this day when fifth graders ask about the risks of smoking, the existence for the Council for Tobacco Research allows the tobacco companies to say, we don't know and we are still trying to find out. I am not impugning your integrity, but I am telling you that there is a tremendous gap between your insistence that CTR has not focused on public relations and all of these documents we have put on the record which indicate that the Council for Tobacco Re- search has been used exactly for public relations and not fully for scientific inquiries.

Thank you for being here, and we will have further opportunities to work together. That concludes our hearing today and we stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] (The following material was submitted for the record:] ~ qMERICAN S SO~ETYR• * AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIA71ONw ~ Amcrican Hcart H Associalion v_ ,,..,,.~r..~. .... CoalilifJn on Smoking OR Health pur Rcle.ace: Contact: Joc Marx, AHA "IlmrvLay• May 26, 1994 .v 202/822•9380 Diane Maple• ALA 202/785-3355 Curtis Allcn.ACS 404/329-7920 TOBACCO RESEARCff COUNCII. HAS AEEN PART OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY DECEPTION, HEALTH GROUPS SAY 3 Washington, May 26 --The Council for Tobacco Research has been part of the tobacco induslry's shroud of deception, says the American Heart Association, the American Ltmg Association and the American Cancer Society, united as the Coalition on Smoking OR Health. -L'vidcnce that has surfaced In tobacco liability cases clearly shows that the Council for Tobacco Research was a linchpin in the tobacco industry's strategy to mislead the public and the Congress alwut Ihe dangers of smoking,' says Scott D. nallin, chairman of the steering committee of the coalition and vice president• public'affairs for the AHA. Adds Ballin, 'The council's role was to provide a front for the tobacco industry's campaign to discredit the medical evidence that smoking causes disease. The council fil perfectly into tobacco companies' primary objectives to sabotage tobacco control legislation and to protect themselves from liability.' Two years ago, the coalition sent a letter to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asking for an investigation to detennine if the tobacco industry had lied to Congress about the purpose of lhe Council for Tobacco Research. The coalition pnwided Mr. Dingell with internat tobacco Industry documents that were made public in two major tobacco liability cases that were heard in the New Jersey federal court system. Cioollone v, l.lenyt Group. Inc- and Haines v. Liegen Glpup. Inc. 'Since the 1950s. rrepresentatives of the Tobacco Institute, the major tobacco companies. the Council for Tobacco Research and public relations finns representing the tobacco industry have appeared before numerous congressional committees, made statements to the media and cmulucted widespread public relations campaigns that had no other purpose than to deccive.' the Icner said. Says Iiallin, 'We commend Representative \Vasnun and his subcommiaoe for initiating these imfwnanl hearings. The invcstigation must continue so that all the facts are hnwRhl before the public. But we also need a public policy solution that -MOR& t 141 f..x•ra'~K'+I Avenue. N W. Sw.r a41. W.,hipYw. tl!' _Ir/M TekpMne:IM/?I~t!.IIIU FA%:IMI:IJ{?-1417 I ~ i~

E~ TR HN 043150