Anne Landman's Collection
Subject: Philip Morris Research
Abstract
This 1992 Philip Morris (PM) document about the funding of various research projects around the world indicates that there are a number of less-then-obvious reasons why PM funds research projects in various countries. The author of the document is Charles Wall, Vice President and Associate General Counsel for PM. According to the document, PM funded some research projects in part because the scientists performing them had good contacts with government officials and within the research community in that country: "While the research recommended for funding in 1993 through Tassin,Dusser, Molimard, Micheletti, Hirt and Symann is good, another reason for funding them is due to the importance of those researchers in their respective countries. For the most part, they have excellent contacts within the scientific community and the government and, therefore, are of assistance to Philip Morris..."
The document also makes it apparent that PM funded research simply to create a "presence" in a given country that might yield political benefit to the company:
"I view with some concern the research effort in Germany...Much of the research focuses on nicotine...There are a number of projects which could easily be canceled, or not started, that could save us several hundred thousand DM. ...Our scientists feel, however, that it is important to keep the research money in Germany, i.e., continue to support researchers in Germany... [W]hile Paul may not have any problem with the reduction [in funding], my guess is that he will feel that we should attempt to locate worthwhile research projects in Germany, so that we are in a position, in dealing with the German government, to point to ongoing research projects in that country. The relationship between the industry and the German government seems to be a good deal better than the relationship between the industry and the government in this country [the United States]. As I understand it, there are regular consultations between government and industry scientists, as well as constructive discussions regarding smoking-related laws and regulations. The industry in Germany appears to be more influential with the government than the industry in the U.S., and, for that reason, the industry feels it is important to maintain a substantial research presence [in Germany]."
PM also sponsored research in a given country in anticipation of litigation, in hopes of helping sway court decisions in their favor:
"Although I do not believe litigation is imminent in Germany, should it occur, the fact that we are sponsoring research...could be of substantial help in convincing a court that we are fulfilling our duty to conduct research."
Fields
- Quotes
Our scientists feel, however, that it is important to keep the research money in Germany, i.e., continue to support researchers in Germany even if we are not supporting them through the Verband. I have asked both Walter Fink and Helmut Reif to talk with Paul Hendrys about a general reduction in the VdC budget, and whether he feels it is necessary to continue to spend the money in Germany. While Paul may not have any problem with the reduction, my guess is that he will feel that we should attempt to locate worthwhile research projects in Germany, so that we are in a position, in dealing with the German government, to point to ongoing research projects in that country. The relationship between the industry and the German government seems to be a good deal better than the relationship between the industry and the government in this country. As I understand it, there are regular consultations between government and industry scientists, as well as constructive discussions regarding smoking-related laws and regulations. The industry in Germany appears to be more influential with the government than the industry in the U.S. and, for that reason, the industry feels it is important to maintain a substantial research presence.
Although I do not believe litigation is imminent in Germany, should it occur, the fact that we are sponsoring research -- whether through the Verband, or individually - could be of substantial help, in convincing a court that we are fulfilling our duty to conduct research. Nor do I think we should downplay the importance of having scientific contacts in as important a country as Germany.
- Company
- Philip Morris Cos., Inc.
- Author
- Wall, Charles R. (PM VP & Assoc. Gen. Counsel, c. 1994)Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Philip Morris 1994-94 (may have been longer; this info was gleaned from documents); formerly worked for Shook, Hardy and Bacon.
- Recipient
- Bring, Murray H. (PM Attorney, Sr. VP & Counsel, Board of Directors)Senior Vice President and General Counsel of PM, 1994; former partner of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. Defended PM in the Cipollone case.
Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, Philip Morris Research and Development facility in Nuechatel, Switzerland. Many of the documents generated by this facility are in German or French language.
A wholly-owned subsidiary of Philip Morris Co., Inc.
"INBIFO" stands for Institut Fur Biologische Forschung, or Institute for Biological Research. It is located in Germany. Philip Morris acquired Inbifo on June 30, 1971. Its stated mission was "quantitative biological product evaluation" by using "comprehensive toxicological and physiological testing. Major activities are listed as: product evaluation and modifications, product ingredients and ETS-related technical knowledge and smoke components. Inhalation toxicology was a key feature of Inbifo. (Derived from Bates No. 2505235055/5088)
Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, Philip Morris Research and Development facility in Nuechatel, Switzerland. Many of the documents generated by this facility are in German or French language.
Created and funded by the tobacco industry to award grants to study of the link between smoking and disease. Part of a four decade effort to cast doubt on the links between smoking and disease.
A Philip Morris-created entity that funded research to "contribute in a major way to the advancement of medical science," to "be, and be seen to be pro bono publico," and to "optimize the impact of of Philip Morris products on the quality of life of consumers" and to "convey a strong public relations image." (PM 2023119435/9446, 1994).
Associate General Counsel for Philip Morris. Worked for Shook, Hardy and Bacon. Vice President, PM Worldwide Regulatory Affairs, 1994. Responsible for management and direction of ETS focused department. Reported to Steven Parrish, Senior VP of PM External Affairs.
Partner of industry law firm Shook Hardy and Bacon before going to work for PM. Was VP of PM Corporate Scientific Affairs in 1990. Defends PM on television.
Philip Morris Director and worked in Scientific Affairs. Reported to Cathy ellis.
Vice President of Research and a scientist for Philip Morris, Inc. Vice President of Research for Philip Morris, Inc. in 1986 and then again from 1992 to 1993.
Iancou Marcovitch was a Philip Morris Scientist - Europe & Industry Communications, Vice Director Science and Technology of Philip Morris Europe. (PMI's Introduction to Privilege Log and Glossary of Names, Estate of Burl Butler v. PMI, et al, April 19, 1996)
Peter Martin was an Associate Principal Scientist for Philip Morris Europe. (PMI's Introduction to Privilege Log and Glossary of Names, Estate of Burl Butler v. PMI, et al, April 19, 1996) Dr. Peter Martin worked for Philip Morris Research Center at Box 26583, Richmond, Virginia 23261 in 1975. [Butler 2021648905-13, (P.O.)]
Helmut Reif was Director of Science and Technology for FTR. (PMI's Introduction to Privilege Log and Glossary of Names, Estate of Burl Butler v. PMI, et al, April 19, 1996)
1953 Benson & Hedges. 1965 Philip Morris USA Chief of Operations. 1969-73 President of Philip Morris, Inc. 1978 PM Chief Executive. Served on Tobacco Institute Executive Committee, 1979.
Outside research on nicotine analogs for PM. University of Rochester. Around 1980.
Philip Guzelian's consultancy with Philip Morris was concurrent with that of Leo Abood and Ragnar Rylander. He made $100,000 per year from PM. (Bliley PM 23838)
Professor of Environmental Hygiene, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Worked on contract to Philip Morris overseeing biological laboratory work being performed at INBIFO, PM's biological labs in Cologne, Germany. PM paid Rylander $150,000 per year (salary determined from Bliley PM doc 2022850392, from 1992)
1993 Germany
Frequently funded by the tobacco industry to criticize and discount published and epidemiological studies that linked between tobacco smoking and health damage.
Director of Human Psychopharmacology group at University of Reading in the United Kingdom, Dr. Warburton published a paper "The Functions of Pleasure" which grouped tobacco with chocolate, coffee and food as substances which "give us pleasure and enhance the quality of our lives." He founded the tobacco-industry funded group ARISE (Associates for Research in Substance Enjoyment, later changed to the "Science of Enjoyment"). ARISE was also funded by breweries, distilleries and a food company.
1989 Seibersdorf, Austria
Document Images
PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES INC.
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Murray H. Bring
Charles R. Wall
Philip Morris Research
120 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORI~ N.Y. 10017.5592
DATE:: July 23, 1992
On May 19, Tony Andrade, Steve Parrish and I met with Richard Carchman,
Jim Charles, Ian Marcovitch, Peter Martin and Helmut Reif, senior scientists with
Philip Morris. Our discussions focused on the research set forth in the notebook
given to you on May 13. We discussed the merits of each research project and
funding needs for 1993. In addition, we discussed the research funding requests set
forth as Exhibits D, E, F and G, in the notebook.
I will discuss the research as it appears in the memorandum in the notebook,
pages 2 to 14.
I. Primary issue grants formerly with FTR/S&T, now with Steve Parrish.
Ian Marcovitch is the Philip Morris liaison with most of these researchers.
Ian feels that most of the research should be continued in 1993. Of the
scientists listed, Caboche, Schneider and Vincze, will not be funded in
1993. The total for these researchers is 179,100 (CHF). We recommend an
increase in funding for Syrjaenen, of 30,200 (CHF). As a result of his
assistance to the industry in the Aho case, his funding from the Finnish
scientific establishment was stopped. The net savings for those researchers
for 1993 will be 148,900 (CHF).
TO: Murray H. Bring
RE: Philip Morris Research
July 23, 1992
Page Two
While the research recommended for funding in 1993 through Tassin,
Dusser, Molimard, Micheletti, Hirt and Symann is good, another reason
for funding them is due to the importance of those researchers in their
respective countries, For the most part, they have excellent contacts
within the scientific community and the government and, therefore, are
of assistance to Philip Morris, in keeping abreast of developments in both
arenas.
The research sponsored at Kings College, by Professor Gerrod and through
Weetman and Nilsen, is ETS research, taken care of in Steve Parrish's
budget and, therefore, not the subject of this review.
Netherlands (Schticting). The research here amounts to only $16,500 and
provides us with a research presence in the Netherlands, which is
considered of some value.
Switzerland (AFSC). Because FTR is located in Switzerland, everyone feels
it is important to continue significant contributions to researchers there.
Philip Morris's share of that research funding (200,000 CHF), based on its
market share, is quite reasonable. Some of the research is quite good, such
TO: Murray H. Bring
RE: Philip Morris Research
July 23,1992
Page Three
as that of Cerutti and Haab. The research of Brunner and B/ittig is subject
to some question. In Brunner's case, I question the relevance, and in
B/ittig's, I question its importance. Marcovitch believes we should
continue our current funding level. I agree, and have asked Marcovitch to
be on the alert for other research proposals.
IV.
Belgium (Fetatab). The research of Malherbe (9,000 CHF) has been
canceled, and is not being funded in 1992.
Australia (ATRF). Australia presents an interesting problem. Phil Francis
has reported that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get good research
applications, because of the political environment in Australia. Phil has
even raised the question as to whether we should disband the Australian
Tobacco Research Council and, hence, our research efforts in Australia.
Apparently, the Council operates much like the CTR in the United States;
I am reluctant to recommend any decrease in research funding, because
some research presence is necessary, and can be beneficial to the Company.
Rather, I would like to explore the possibility of locating other researchers,
who have worthwhile projects, and fund them. This would mean a slight
TO:. Murray H. Bring
RE: Philip Morris Research
July 23, 1992
Page Four
change in the emphasis in Australia, from applications and grants to
contracts. I am of the opinion that we should, at least, make an effort to
find first-class researchers to fund, in Australia, and recommend that
Richard Carchman be asked to try to develop some research ideas for
Australia. The amount is not that great, and can still serve a very useful
purpose.
VI.
INBIFO. This is, by far, the largest funding (approximately $14,000,000)
supported by the Company, and the breakdown of the research is set forth
on page 6. Ken Houghton, Jim Charles and Richard Carchman are of the
view that INBIFO is extremely important to the Company's ability to do
product evaluation, develop new products, and respond to scientific,
regulatory and legal issues, worldwide. Currently, a major product
evaluation and development effort is focused on Project Beta, which is the
project we recently discussed in Richmond. ]~BIFO is also doing work on
environmental tobacco smoke and testing ingredients. Based on my own
observations and discussions with Jim, Richard and the scientists at
INBIFO, I doubt that the funds allocated to INBIFO can be better spent
elsewhere. My sense is that INBIFO provides an important research
function for the Company.
TO: Murray FL Bring
RE: Philip Morris Research
July 23, 1992
Page Five
In addition, as I previously informed you, Steve Parrish and I have asked
Jim and Richard to prepare a protocol and budget for a lifetime ETS
inhalation experiment. I am told that such a project, whether done in-
house or under contract with an outside laboratory, will cost between two
and three million dollars.
VII.
Philip Morris USA. Philip Morris maintains consultancies with Leo
Abood, Philip Guzelian and Ragnar Rylander. It is Jim Charles's view that
the relationship with Abood should stop after 1992, which will free up
$90,000 for 1993, and that the relationship with Guzelian should stop after
1993, which will free up $100,000 in subsequent years~ Both Jim and
Carchman believe that our relationship with Ragnar Rylander has proved
beneficial to the Company, and should continue; i.e., $150,000 per year.
We are committed to the Case Western funding, as set forth on page 7.
We have discussed the Meyer Friedman funding, and we are interested, I
believe, in supporting that funding until November 1998, which would
cost about $1.3 million per year.
TO: Murray H. Bring
RE: Philip Morris Research
July 23,1992
Page Six
The Verband (VdC). I do not know what control we have over the Philip
Morris portion of the VdC budget. Our 1992 budgeted research
contribution is 34% of 8,656,000 DM, or about $1,800,000.
I view with some concern the research effort in Germany. The Research
Council operates much like the SAB of the CTR, and supports research
based on grant applications. Much of the research focuses on nicotine. As
you can tell, the Research Council's budget is approximately 2,500,000 DM,
of which our share is $519,880. There is additional research funded by the
industry outside of the Research Council, and that amount is budgeted in
1992 at approximately 2,900,000 DM, of which our share is $603,060. It is
this latter research that I believe could be reduced without a significant
downside to the industry. There are a number of projects which could
easily be canceled, or not started, that could save us several hundred
thousand DM. Rather than eliminate any specific projects, the best
approach is to discuss with Paul Hendrys the possibility of reducing the
budget for 1993 by 20%.
Our scientists feel, however, that it is important to keep the research
money in Germany, i.e., continue to support researchers in Germany even
TO: Murray I-L Bring
RE: Philip Morris Research
July 23, 1992
Page Seven
if we are not supporting them through the Verband. I have asked both
Walter Fink and Helmut Reif to talk with Paul Hendrys about a general
reduction in the VdC budget, and whether he feels it is necessary to
continue to spend the money in Germany. While Paul may not have any
problem with the reduction, my guess is that he will feel that we should
attempt to locate worthwhile research projects in Germany, so that we are
in a position, in dealing with the German government, to point to
ongoing research projects in that country. The relationship between the
industry and the German government seems to be a good deal better than
the relationship between the industry and the government in this country.
As I understand it, there are regular consultations between government
and industry scientists, as well as constructive discussions regarding
smoking-related laws and regulations. The industry in Germany appears
to be more influential with the government than the industry in the U.S~
and, for that reason, the industry feels it is important to maintain a
substantial research presence.
Although I do not believe litigation is imminent in Germany, should it
occur, the fact that we are sponsoring research -- whether through the
Verband, or individually - could be of substantial help, in convincing a
TO: Murray H. Bring
RE: Philip Morris Research
July 23,1992
Page Eight
court that we are fulfilling our duty to conduct research. Nor do I think
we should downplay the importance of having scientific contacts in as
important a country as Germany. Therefore, a reduction in the Verband
budget will have little impact on the availability of money for other
research programs outside Germany.
Philip Morris prize awards. These total 300,000 CHF each year, and are
administered through Philip Morris Corporate Affairs - EEC. Marcovitch
feels these are important to keep Philip Morris's name and presence
known in France, Italy and Germany. I recommend we continue these
programs.
Xo
Other consultants. These all appear to be ETS consultants, and are
administered by Steve Parrish and paid through his budget.
Research applications,
A. Meyer Friedman Institute. This needs further discussion.
B. Duke University (Dr. Red Williams). I do not recommend the
continuation of this project, but I should note that Dr. Williams
apparently has good contacts with Cliff Goldsmith. Williams asked
TO: Murray t-L Bring
RE: Philip Morris Research
July 23, 1992
Page Nine
Do
Jim Charles whether he should talk to Cliff with regard to the
funding of his project. You will note on page 13 that Dr. Williams
is requesting $380,000 each year for the next two years, for a total of
$760,000. As I said in my memo of April 7 to you and Bill Murray,
currently, we do not have any funds in 1992 or 1993 for this project.
Medical College of Virginia (Lyndon Eaves). Jim Charles has told
Dr. Eaves that we will not be able to fund his research.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Dr. Michael Klag is
requesting approximately $51,000 a year for the next two years, to
fund what he calls "the precursors" study." See Exhibit E in my
report of May 20 to you. Basically, the study is designed to identify
psychological, behavioral, genetic, physiologic and social factors
associated with the development of hypertension and premature
cardiovascular disease. Jet Lincoln was, and remains, fond of this
study, and Philip Morris has been a supporter of it, or similar
studies~ at Johns Hopkins, for a number of years. Since 1986, we
have given the following amounts to Johns Hopkins University:
1986: $199,136
1987: 182,440
1990: 298,777
TO: Murray H. Bring
RE: Philip Morris Research
July 23, 1992
Page Ten
While the work is of scientific interest~ I have concerns about its
direct applicability to our problems and, therefore, the priority we
ought to assign to it.
Peter Lee. This amount is approximately $60,000, and the general
view is that the information from the autopsies could prove
extremely helpful and, therefore, this should be funded.
D. Warburton. This will not be funded.
Anthony Papconstantinou (Greece). This study will not be funded.
Hans Altmann. This study will not be funded.
XU. Summary. As you can see, there are some projects which we will not fund
in 1993. You can also see, however, that the amount of money saved is
relatively insignificant when compared to the research requests.
Therefore, the decision must be made as to whether we are going to come
up with the necessary money to fund Friedman until 1998, in the amount
of $1.3 million per year, and Dr. Williams at Duke University, in the
amount of approximately $760,000 for the next two years. If we are going
to fund either or both of these projects, we will need a supplemental
appropriation, as I discussed in my memos of April 1 and April 7.
