Tobacco Documents Online

Tiir COUNCIL FoR~'I'oB.tcco Piai:nizetiI-U.S.A., INC. 110 EAST 59TH STiRT•.F.T V~SN', YOIt1C,. \. Y. 10022 . February 13, 1974 Freddy Homburger, M.D~ President Bio-Research Consultants, Inc. 9 Commercial Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141 Dear Freddy: Jur last letters apparently crossed in the mail. I was aware of the paper by Dontenwill and associates; in fact, I had known of its contentss for some time. That was one reason why we wanted you to get your d'efinitive paper on your results with smoke exposure of hamsters in so that it might be published. I have gone over your detailed final~ report and it certainly seems that the work reported there merits reporting. Photograohs of the lesions were not available however. When we get a manuscript and iLlustrations so that the results can be evaluated by us and our consultants we wiLl be in a better position to discuss definitive publication with you. We desire to expedite early definitive publication of your work. As Dr. Hockett and others of us have told ;ou,, ho:aever,, we cannot zgree to fragmentary or imprecise publications, which may be misinterpreted. Therefore, we must insist on your observing your contract obligations not to publish without our approval. Dr. Hockett has taken up:with you~some of the points that we andiour pathology consultants had:mentioned in reliation to your work and abstracts of papers to be presented at meetings. Again illustrations were not available. If material is to be presented repeatedly at meetings it should, at least,be in process of definitive publication. As to your previous letter and attached chronology, no useful purpose would be served by detailed reference to the mistakes and distortions contained im them. However, a few general observat'ions that have been~made to you several times deserve repetition. As you know, and as I learned when I became affiliiated with The Councili, the contract with Bio-Research~Consultants, Inc. was for support of a feasibility study for the exposure of hamsters as laboratory animals to fresh smoke. Your experiences indicated that the hamster was the species you considered most desirable. The Council and its Scientific Advisory Board were desirous of getting an animal model that might give cancer of the lungs similar to~those arising in man and associated statistically with exposure to cigarette smoke over long,periods of time. The hamster did not do this in either your nor Dontenwill's ilnvestigations. As we have told you several times, it was for this as welli as other reasons -- ranging from a choice of the mouse over the hamster as the animal to be exposed to consideration of available facilities for various aspects of the work -- that we decided not to support further hamster inhalation work at your

C C TIIII'CiOU\CILI'o12 ToI'.ACCo liIisI[A12CI1-U'.5.A., IlC. Freddy Homburger,, M.D. - 2- February 13, 1974 laboratory. As you know, our decision has not been to suspend or terminate inhalation exposure work but rather to go forward with expanded support of correlated research. . I1understand that you have sentt copies of your previous letter referring to this subject to several of the tobacco companies. I am therefore sending them copies of this letter. WUG:ek Sincerely, William U. Gardner, Ph.D. Scientific Director