Tobacco Documents Online

JET'S Money Offer

Abstract

This confidential internal 1969 Philip Morris (PM) memo has been used as a trial exhibit in cases against the industry including Minnesota, Texas and most recently in the Boeken case in California. In it, author William Dunn of PM comments on potential areas of research proposed by another PM employee, J. E. ("Jet") Lincoln, that could prove beneficial for PM. In the memo, Dunn states

"Our position should obviously be supportive of Jet's for the primitive reason of 'Who ain't for more money?..."

However, Dunn cautioned against doing research that could be construed as an admission that cigarette smoke is a drug:

"I would be more cautious in using the pharmic-medical model--do we really want to tout cigarette smoke as a drug? It is, of course, but there are dangerous F.D.A. implications to have such conceptualization go beyond these walls."

Dunn concludes by saying that if they can understand the "reinforcing mechanism" of cigarette smoking, "we are potentially more able to upgrade our product."

Fields

Quotes

Another sign that the winds are shifting. R&D is coming into its own right in the industry, being finally differentiated from the public relations activities! Isn't this a propitious time to move for a break out of Operations?

Our position should obviously be supportive of Jet's for the primitive reason of "Who ain't for more money?" and the more impelling urgency of generating substantive research, the results of which can be increasingly valuable as the current hysteria subsides. I predict public recoil and a readiness for a more objective look at the issue before the mid-70's. We've got 3-5 years to put Philip Morris in the saddle with good data.

I would be more cautious in using the pharmic-medical model -- do we really want to tout cigarette smoke as a drug? It is, of course, but there are dangerous F.D.A. implications to having such conceptualization go beyond these walls.

Jet takes it as a fact that nicotine acts as a stimulant-tranquilizer. He apparently bases this on the old Roper Survey of Smokers' Attitudes and perhaps also on the less clear pharmacological evidence of the dual action of nicotine at the biochemical and endocrinological levels. At this stage of knowledge his position is presumptive. We really don't know if any of the myriad physiological responses reveiwed by Silvette and Larson are in fact mediative of the subjective experiences induced by smoke which reinforce and perpetuate the habit. No one, for example, has linked any of these physiological effects with the pleasant state of dizziness so clearly experienced by the beginning smoker and by the habituated smoker following abstention. In fact, this is a beautiful subject for a major research effort: the subjective correlates of the pharmacological action of nicotine - a natural extrapolation of our now modest psychophysiological effort.

More broadly, the focus of his proposed research effort expansion should be, in my opinion, less upon the improvement of the product and more upon the psychophysiological entity responding to the product.

Another research topic with potential payout is the response of the organism under stress to cigarette smoke. What physiological events are occurring under stress, and what modification of these events results from the introduction of nicotine, e.e., the inhalation of smoke?

Another timely topic upon which I am not qualified to elaborate and credit for which I give to Dr. Rollins, is the impact of sociopolitical events upond the diagnoses rendered by medical diagnosticians. There is no question but what sensitization to medical trends and issues alters dramatically the frequency with which certain diseases get diagnosed. This phenomenon has inflated the reported lung carcinoma and emphysema incidences among smokers in this country, and has probably deflated the reported incidences among non-smokers. Documentation is possible and could have great impact. The proposal is not related to Jet's proposed thrust, but I'm including it here for lack of a better occasion.

A greatly increased effort supportive of the self-selection hypothesis (your bio-physio-social (?) hypothesis) is in order. The teaching of our non-rats to smoke and the contingent animal parallel of epidemiological studies which has been proposed, is a miniscule venture into this area. We are presently unable to predict whether a trier will become a smoker. This overlaps with some of the above proposal, since in effect we would be in search of the mechanism of habit reinforcement.

Perhaps this is the key phrase: the reinforcing mechanism of cigarette smoking. If we understand it, we are potentailly more able to upgrade our product.

Company

Philip Morris Cos., Inc.

Author

@dunn_william_l ¹

Scientific Researcher at Philip Morris

Recipient

Wakeham, Helmut R. R., Ph.D. (PM R&D VP)

Vice President and Director of Research & Development, Philip Morris

Director of Scientific Research, Philip Morris

Region

United States

Litigation

Stmn/Produced

Stmn/Selected

Stmn/Trial Exhibit P-10539

Stmn/Trial Exhibit P-2565

Txag/Trial Exhibit P-12909

Txag/Trial Exhibit P-8313

Type

Memorandum

Subject

Drug effects

FDA Regulations

industry sponsored research