Tobacco Documents Online

This personal and confidential Philip Morris (PM) memo was used as a trial exhibit in the Minnesota and Boeken cases. In it, the Director of Research at PM, Dr. Thomas Osdene writes to Dr. R. B. Seligman (Vice President of Research and Development at PM) criticizing the research results emanating from the Council for Tobacco Research.

Osdene complains:

"I was amazed at the trend that CTR work is taking. For openers, Dr. Donald H. Ford, a new staff member, makes the following quotes:

"Opiates and nicotine may be similar in action."

"We accept the fact that nicotine is habituating."

"There is a relationship between nicotine and the opiates."

Osdene was also concerned that yet another scientist, Dr. Leo Abood, was investigating antagonists to nicotine and that his work "could well lead to a clinically acceptable antagonist." (An antagonist in the chemical sense is defined as "that which counteracts the action of something else."* Thus Dr. Osdene was concerned that a chemcial which counteracts nicotine would be developed through CTR-funded research.

Osdene says,

"It is my strong feeling that with the progress that has been claimed, we are in the process of digging our own grave...I believe that the program as set up has the potential of great damage to the industry..."

* Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, Edition 13

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."