Tobacco Documents Online

i Mr. ArthurS. Stevens - 2 - ` January 30, 1974 -I am not surpri~sedat Homburger's letter,, in that he will lose.considerable.revenues in not continuing inhalation studies. He, apparently, foresaw a large expansion of these activities through a program of comparing different smoking products by theinhaliation procedure. I do believe that CTR should respond to the Homburger letter, outlining a number of valid scientific reasons for terminating the.activity. These reasons,, in my opinion, should not be based upon the contention that there was a viral infectiom in his colony of animals, but rather their explicit reasons for terminating this program. I believe.that thedecision to contract this work at Oak Ridge as opposed to,, say Homburger, was for the following reasons: 1. specific pathogen-free environment isrequired, not available at Homburger's location~. 2. Extensive chemistryis required to document the smoke composition to which the animals are exposed, not available at Homburger's location. 3. The general laboratory facilities occupied by Homburger are not sufficient to maintain fairly large numbers of animals in a.required environment. 4. Radioactive tracer experiments are required, and Homburger has not demonstrated experience in this area. AWS:rcb Xc: Mr. C. H. Judge `r

MEMORANDUM TD:: Mr. Arthur J. Stevens FROM: A. W. Spears~. January 304 1974 I have reviewed the correspondence sent by Doctor Homburger relating to a smoke inhalation method involving hamsters_ As I understand the situation, CTR had a contract with Doetor Homburger whiehfirst involved development of the so-called "Walton Smoking Machine," although this smoking machine has since been modified at Mason Laboratories, where it acquired the name "Walton-Morrissey SmokingiMachine,," and:then again by the CTR.staff, when,t it was produced commercialip at Precision Scientific. The current models of the smoking machine involve a chamber and the cigarettes mounted in a horizontal position, as well as mixing devi;ces.et cetera. In the meantime, Homburger has continued under contract to.expose a numlber of hamsters with the original machine. To my knowledge, there is no.inEormatiom as to the dosage of smoke that the animals received, or how that smoke composition may have been affected by the.inadequacies of the original Walton Smoking Machine design.. Also, Homburger has. asseztedthat certaim strainsof hamsters that he has developed are more resistant to the toxicity off tobacco smoke and are,, therefore, more suitable to inhalation studies. Apparently, the inhalation experiment supported~ by CTR has resulted in a claim by Homburger that he has produced laryngeal tumors as.a result of the smoke exposure in,these animals. whether these are actually tumorsor whether or not viral infections might have influenced the results, I cannot say, in that I have no first hand information in this area. However, I do feel that theCTR judgment of not continuing;this.work under Homburger is correct, in that his procedures" methodology andd laboratory provisions do not.result in the kind of controlled inhalation methodology that will be required for good reproducible information.