Tobacco Documents Online

P.ztract from REPORT ON VISIT TO b.8.A. end CARADA 17th Aoril - 12th May 1958 by R.R. BEftTLE7, D.O.I. FLLTON d W.x. REID r ATTITUIE 07 U.S. IFDIISTP.Y TO BIOLOGICAL TESTIR6. Liggett & Myers stq ed out of T.I.B.C. originally becaurs they doubted the aiaoerity of T.I.R.C. motives and believed that the organization was too unwieldy to work efficiently. They res~ain convinced that their misgivir.ge were justified. In their opinion T.I.B.C. has done little if aryything conetr.ictiYQ,' the constantly reiterated "not provsa" statements iH"the face of mounting oontras7 evidence has thoroughly discredited T.I.B.C., and the 5.1.8. of T.I.R.C. is supporting almost without exception projects which are not related directly to smoking and lung cancer. Liggette felt that the problem was sufficiently serious to justify large-scale investment by the Company directly in ezperimsntal rbsea.-ch on smoke and cancer, accepting privately that a strong case agaiast tobacco had been made out and avoiding any public comment until their oRa research had provided something coaer.ts to offer. After consulting the A.D. Little Orgaaisatioa and others they concluded that access to biological testing facilities was essential and the outcome of this was the collaborative project with A.D. bittle. 1fe Rere told that Liag.tts havs already invested considerably mors in this work than the combined donations of the rest of the industry to T.I.R.C. 4hs object is to eliainate or reduce oonsidsrably the cs.rcinogenicitT of cigarette smoke as revesled by asries of s.nimal tests and the results to date are considered to justify the inrestment.' If any- thing useful finally cones to light Liggetts rrill publish only after they hare first secured full commercial advsntsge for themselves, including patent rotection ii appropriate. Their daily production of about 150 g. of smoke fractions for testing is an indez of the considerable scsle oa which Liggette are operating. It was clear from talks we had that, probably, msmber oompanies of T.I.B.C. bad all at one time or another considered using biological testing in oonjunetioa with chemical fractionation. $anmer of I.T.Co, bad prepared a eompr.hensi.+ soheme for biologioal research eireral years ago but aotion oa this had been deferred. 11e wsr. tola that Philip ltarris were now considering a biological tvsearch project and we disoovsred that T,orillard han retained Vynder as a consultant and sre collaborating with him. `\ BAT- Co LTO - MIN1vESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION J W O ~T~ ~N 0 43122 ~ ~

- 2 - Boyt told us that he did not know whether or not individual member companies of T.I.R.C. were doing biological research. Ba said it was generally assumed by scientists outside the industry that in fact the tobacco companies were doing this sort of work and that these scientists would be shocked if they thought that this was not so. At the meeting of the I.T.C. of T.I.B.C, which we attended we were unable to obtain any first-hand inforasstion as to whether or not individual companies were engaged in biological research. It is probably safe to assume that at least A.T.Co. are not involved although they do support a considerable amount of biological research by Larson at Medical College of Virginia which is not related to lung cancer. It is perhaps significant of the trend of thought in that we were told by Bockett that, in addition to work supported by grants which can be freely pnblished,the S.1.8, is now considering contraoting out biological work on a commereial basis. This at first would be exploratory work on quantitative carcinogenicity, but the change of principle is that for the first time the line of research and publication policy would be completely in the hands of the S.1.8. J *R AT 'Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITTGATION CTR HN 0432GNIC"?