Tobacco Documents Online

r-• . . -~ PHILIP MORRIS - RESPO ''"`'• R O P s INTE FICE COR MDENCE ~•.. RICMMKp. YIRGIKIA I}r. H. Wakeham 0'te November 12, 1971 ;• . . . ~From: . R. N. Saleeby, Jr. saDl'ect: . Review of CTR Abstracts Dated 11/1/70 I have.•reviewed the 7L abstracts of CTR grants In force on November 1, 1970, havdng an aggregate then current level value of $2.5 million. (In a press• release of Ia'st week, awards and renewals for 10 months 1971 aggregated $2. 4 millton, so the rate is holding. ) The grants of last year break down as• follows: - $M Cancer IZ00 Cardiovascular 304 Chronic respiratory disease 600 Epidemiology 20 Nicooine (pharmacology, behavioral, ps ychologtcal) 200 Miscellaneous 300. 27f6. The most signiflcant zeactton 1 had n r adt thp ahsrrarrQ ~~ r~ fPP]ing of distance manv of •them~avP r~ n e mnhlem cf Qm &na a h~,31_th. By my subjective accounting, $430M, or~79' I ~4•a~,r en rho stzpos;d Jur x• ~eat~of CFR. It should be noted that there may be a trend toward more relevance. The titles° of the 18 new awards granted so far tn 1971 look as a group more interesting. As• a further subjective exercise, I rated each project from 1 (best) to 5 (worst). Here is how the money got distributed: SM 1 (best) T8a 2 320 3 460 4 740 5 (worst) 780 Attached Is a marked copy of the list of projects giving the classlficaldons 1 to 5 which I made. The character "x" means I consider the work not relevant to smoking and health. PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT ~ DATE 5'-Wq- 97 RICHARD G. STIREWALT REG. PROF. COURT REPORTER .~. , . 0 0 0 N V1 Ln N V a, . n CTR ) 3 f'S 4„A 4.•3.C'~,..• Gqt a f

Dr. H. Wakeham .•. - 2- November 12, 1971 Th~e very best studies. in my opinion ( 1 rating) perhaps deserve mention: .1 ... Bio-Research (contract f:5): Basic tnhalation studies ($75M) ... Bing: Nicotine. Influence on lipid deposition of vas.cular waU ($35M) ...Guarneri: Basic study of behavior of alveblar macrophages ($14M) ... Chopra: Fate of pesticides [n cigarette smoke ($29M) ... Larson: Compilation of the literature into Supplement 11 of book ($29M) Here are sotne- other observations: 1. The lower numbered grants (presumably the oldest?) seem particularly off-base. 2. The3,-cagcer p,roQ-L ($1• 1QQMt gf a11 thin~s ~Pe,~tttc ~*+;r*irnlart~w .~ak~, There is a lott of good work oin g, on, but the CTR ants are in those areas.,_„ safest rom e , The v ra pr•ograms-- do not, but should, address the question of whether viruses are host factors - which promote and enhance the action d tar In the animal tests used to indict cigarettes. The matter of relative risk of different [ndividuals and possible parttcular susceptibility of some presons are examples of studies that should be supported. 3. There Is virtually no epidemiology (although the Framingham Study Is par- tially revived tn 1971). The Industry claims that statistics don't prove any- thing, and besides the studies have defects. Why not find someepidemiological studies that don't have "defects"? 4. dnly 25 of the 71 abstracts showed up in the Directory (PHS "'1665). Does this say anything.about the researchers' responsiveness to the smoking and health problem? 5. As- an example, one of the most perplexing of the. projects is Mason Research Institute,. who have $119M to study things long since covered, Surely the abstracc prov[ded is not an accurate description of current work. .- 6. The ni ine work ($200M) tends to be either a rehashing of the old vaso 0 constrict[on en menon or behaviortaS/psychologtcal studies w}ytch are 0 ,_ not ver . likel to provide much hard [nformat on. It seems to me that 0 N pzop ey alrea y accepc e ne cta an easurable aspects of smoking, and a scientiftc description ofthese is not likely to improve the tndustry.'s tTt v, N -4 smoking and health posture. -4 CTR MN 043">66

Dr. H. Wakeham - 3- November 12, 1971 ~ On the positive side, soine of the chronic respiratory disease and other human studtes are interesting. The cardiovascular program Ls weak, but certainlyy could be. Improved ln terms o researc c enge. course, this is a dangerous, area, as we have dtscussed as• is the nicotine ou t e es , owever, a much more aggress lve'pr aam stu ng factors- in arterial calclfiication, cbolesterol deposition, nicotine effects on enzyme- systems, etc. could be mounted. . W ith the virus pr•ogram at Washington University, the AMA leaning toward cardiovascular studies, and the. Industry being actlve. with. NCI-TWG on chemical carcinogenesis, there. Is I guess a real question of Quo Vadis CTR? CTR H~`~ 0~~~67