Tobacco Documents Online

iobacco Institute to nersuade the Acc°_r':csn Cancer Society to agree Overscns Press Club, New Yorlc City t;pril 30, 1970 _. - I ;'announce>w.nt today concernzi the efforts of the ;_: :_'.:i, -C!;ai ~.... Of the E^ . .. .Soeiety has twice denied our request. .On February 5, the Cancer Society called a press con- I -> iyeaun=in-lupendent scientific review and cvaluation of the results of an experim_nt entitled, "The Effects of Cigarette Svol:ing Upon Dogs." As ~ou-1;i11 see from our exchange of correspondence with Williara 'feYence at the Waldorf-l:storia }iotel to announce the results of this Rematls of Joseph P. Cu11man 3rd Chairiwn of the Executive Coo:nittee TIIE T08!tCCO INSTITUTE, INC. 1 expericsnt. The Cancer Society press release stated; "For the first .. tir:, scientists have produced lung cancer in a si:Eni:f.icantly. 1erEe c5p^_ri:rt-nt 1 anii:rl as a resul't of lt_a~y cit ret:UC srolcinE " Mst ,; 'si,,'... cance of that cJ.<i.rn be lost on the toLacco indust.r}•, the Cancer. St;:icty r:dded that the fi>rlinLs."tchould have n sifnific. i:t . trpact on the se:u}anC Of cii;t:rcttes im this country, ni,d v111' hrobab?y

--°- -----~ s .2 ~ lccu to a rcassessD=nt of adc~crtisin•I; claiLw and pol i.cies of the cigarette industry." The press relc:ns•, also said that the fi.ndinge "cffectiv41y refute contentions-by cigarette manufactul:ing interests . that there vas no Gig4xetti-cancer link, wni any claiess tothe contrary were onlystati:stical'." I don't need to renil;d you that the Can-ar Society's atterr t to obtain m :xi-rcum publicity for this alleged "brefll hrouFh" sf.ori;es in uuny nUwsl?4per.s in t-hi.s country and other parts of the zm£ highly successful. It resulteu, as you I:rLo"!, in prominent world. J:ie popular nl:C,c.zi-ne thi's month~ heaM.ne , its story on the "SLSOsf.inst' dot,9: "Iiev er. again can the tobacco i.n(.'us t.ry hide bchitid its T1rJf,t'•used Ciefe2lse that no on.`.. ani.r.sls F?i:th cigarette smorc." Let r,' emj ?I asi.ze t as inducce, cancer in laboratory i 11 of tlll.s I7ubl.i:ctt}r concCZlis a _. .-.o~ - .. .~,._.-. . ..- ._.w.... k'ich has not been T,ub)~.is1`~~d Jr, a;,y scf-c-nt-i'f.c ~~zn~:1 ~t,rr4t. 7C~G p or t~~.v.....,,._._...s.e..,-,,- ......s..---~r--.a•'.-. _'°'^"'"' . ~..-........,r-~- -•~. • . icccdreh vhiclt h~. ,..~^s not Lrnn 1;1-,C;C i;.t'i1Jlc f>lC for G2.scuf,.siOn or GxaiD"J~L)n'.~ ......,...,....~~.. _,,.,,. ....._........-.,~.-.~--'°--„'..°".."" { L -r.~ •tr T"'.''. , - .. y, :1 .+ 6.y A i.7 Z.; _ ~ t. y,a, t~y. +~ ~ Y~•+z`~ .,:Y ~ •\ i"'4~ i., .'.~ r . •:.- ~. . r . , : Y. .7' t±',.. .~ ~C.y, . . presentat9:o» of the woik was in,dc hy~ • ~- >z . ~. ~ ; *~~`''~'~~ fic cv:,~n~-tY• ti £ " ' -~'t ,: . en thc sc 'ti}• . t~•r.rr~~w.i.w~"~ :;F :_ 's.:.._:,-r~. ~ .R+t il~M~c~rf~'tr4; ~a~ •~,•' ~ ~~ ~r ;~~~ _- ~ F~'~'~~ ,~,b~~ :• . . . : it A '`~ "~ ~ , ~ ~ -~~~.. •ci:~C. 1" n. Y~i.:~. ~±a T4 ~ ~ ~ ~:. ...~.

investigators to the Cancer Society £oard of Uirectors,on February 5, and t e Society i~~diatcll aftcrxard i.esued their I I reports together with an interpretive "Caclasrounder" to newsr.r_n. .scudy. . of eaferivental results in the lay press before pubLication iman authoritative medi.cFl 1c.urnaL i's consi.c,crcd ourstPonab]e - if not an ic:proper -- prr.cticc. A discussion of thc inpropriety of this type conduct appeared in the New Englend Journal of Mcdicine last year. You have in your press kits copies of an editcrial and tuo letters reputable rc.edical journals have been review^.d by co;npetent editoria1 boards before they are in the pubJ.i.c cio:_tins The Witer noten out it is difficult to sueta_n i.'rt;tci,rily t•hcn an e>:pcric.^nt, goes direr.tly - from the n•.cdic: ?.' proponent to tam lay 1>mas. In rc"onse to thf~s cditori: 1., under the }:caJinf; Of "Gcpnrt-r. 7iu:t M.p the Cun",

doctor writes, "Isn't it about time that medicr,l t:cientists realized i ~ ,'_~ _*: ; ~,: the iraproprie::y of giving,preliwinnry eapcrimental results to lay journals, neFrspaoers and even radio andtclevi.sion reportere?" -articles should not have been submittedArpubLished elsewherey reported in lay journals or •through publir information mcc.ia. _serious science-ne4s reporter uses an.investi_gator's failure to appcar- either in a proi'cssion::l journal or on the pro&ram of an established ceys regard his wrork as of d'oubtful value and hence to be treated {]e :crtzd_i71y subscribe to this tioutlit. We bclieve scicntists should report: their wrork to their pcers - at scientific reetimgs or in scientific journals -- and' tiiat such presentations sh<.uLd"ba open and

reliYtions effort, the Cnricer Society has ciLeyi the public the ------------- fmvres:ion that the Society has aci.:o;nnili:nccc' sor:,ethinS signi'fi•- havE raised witir the Society in our correspondence, and the ° should not. -- accept at face value the claiu:s 'm-de by the Cancer Here are the reasons: . As I have alrcr:uy said, the prescnt accounts not sub_i,ectcd, as such findings are, to ri.~;orozas ii;c3chcnc;cilt scienti_fic revi:ca:. 'I'hs histor.y of tobacco and health r_es earch co;it<:ins not been pub1!i.slied in any scientific journal. .

'of. thece rcrorts werc We under irapressive nucpiccs. ttcx sure that we all re::=cuScr the Stficku^sn filter C- l fiasco, the role of a great Uiiiversity in it, and the ' hearig&s beforc the Scnate Comse:•ce CotLVittec occasioned by the announcement of this so-called scientific breaF- ttirouSh. In the hearinf o the clains sad'e for the filter were considerably modiffed and the principal- proponent and developcr., Dr. Stric)uman, did not annoiincement of these deve2bpments eia):es nekc, but the attcntf.on. Over the years there have been many r..;n)~ cyperSceritc in uhi.ch sc;r:ntists Oa•.e tried to induce WS cancer in anir3als NO ci.grrc= sr.;c`.;c, have result:cd in a pna•ristcnt f;ilure to dem3:Wsl:ra;c. - -._ _-` ----.-----•------ lui;r, cnnccn in hur.ans, in any of LK ..

_'7.. Ttae Tobacco Tncti:tute has twice rco,uc:sted the. fnciependeiit cvaluata.on of the exper-ir.sent in question and its results. tlc said «e would propose as re- va.cwers r,--n of outctarncdin;; coTp etence and f ntegrity, with v~i.dc e>:}?erience in areas LeJ.evant. Co who ve believed wou1.d be thorGuc-hly acceptable to the Socictv. t.e also t tet.cr f.h:':: i£ tt~-,e So::i.ctr should . to bear all costs r~c.cc:t.cl :'or this i.»c?c:pcndent F:na}_ysi.:. '~. ses:.ious c;uestxert €:1>cIut the valic,i t:y of the da Oa7: Lc}.ici i_s tl:~L i; Ll:~ C: Fcc~- c(ety ti:erc confident .. ..~---~--- - - - .....-.~...........~...,._,_,,,~ ~._......_.~.....~..,,,....,........,..,.,...,.......~......,_~...r...... nUCut t.}tc: t.inli(:lty of its c}<:51013,, f.t. NN,A,}c1 11<Ve. t-F;):c0d t.o our ..e.:.~-....,--.,...~..~.e,.............-....n.ti,.,w r,.~...n~... _ .,.._..._>,.,r..,.~...~_..F

-8- proposal for the ncicrti'fYe-review. ~ror.k c The fact that the Cancer Soc:i,ety chose to announce the a prees conference, rEthcr thsn throu£h the usu.:2 scientific channelis, is another indication to us that the rr°_rit of the uork may __ . ... y ._ . . ... . . . . - .. . . . _ . . . in reactio;a to announcer:^_nts about r.ev scientific finctins,s even uhcn uv believed -- as subsequent events proved -- that the sci'encew--s probably questionablc. }towever, the Cancer Society`s cxrloitation --------------- .oY this unpubSisheQ dat& and its rcYus.~.l to perr.^it tl:c clatu to be exas:ine&, leads us to conclude that t.,e should bring this cbtter to public notice. Ctie Society'a fisst refusal to garmit this ret•iew, as' you can sea fr-xn its letter dited 1Sarch 12, s based on the contention that a full report of this tiorl;, wi.l l be publi;:lied in the very near future and that a study of the forr._nll pupers will satisfy any - c(ues tio'ns 'ErithOut f.i:rtl;el invosli.F: tion." 0.:L' ans5CC1' w:s~ that taltc place for so::~:: Cin= an:3 that cvazr the publi c::cd p apzr,^. t:i L'1 not Ln~:;e>_ CFcc i:u;;o; , nt c;ucsti'oa~ ~1~ouC .,'" [iOf!(: 1)Dt14rTibij'rtG

thc.t in or`er to dcci.d-^i v:•tiet::^r t; c c;o~,s actually c:evelopc a lung 0 cancer,'..they Naould have to Ioolc at the a.ctual. tissue specimins . or microscqpi_c slicies. They do not f.eel.that they could forril an accurate o;,inion on the basis of exaoi_»ation ofphotoraicrograptrs, which is" what woul~d appear in an article. .. .- -. , . : which 'I wonld!, like to discuss. Notice that he no longer says in " this -letter that the article will be published in the "very ncar future." He no°w* says that our request is `.`vithout precedent in the sci.entific co:::muni.ty." I have b:.cn under the irpression that tt:e sci`ntific corw.:ur,ity is an open society in. which scientists are understand also that expert review panels are often~ co^vened to settle important questions which depend upon the interpretati.on In his letter of April 17, Mr. Lewis raises some new points M

rescarch resul:ts. As. I said in my latesi: s.eply to 11r. Mwfs, "I submiC that the Cancer Societyts ekpl.oitation of this u:npubl_ishcd uork for publIcity purposcs is truly without pr.ecec:ent In the scientific - coi--aunity. Through its use of publicity techt;iques rather than the been veJ.idated by diz~tiiiguichcd PstholoSists and.that others have

• . ' --- ~~c~ the Cr.ncer Society now choocec to close the work off from fus',hcr examination b;. r; oup of dist'ino.uished scientists who c:ouldl have tuo eminent men submit their findings to any selected cor^iittee . ;chocen by the Tobacco Institute, o:- any other ,xour."' Presuma'i1y, then, the Cancer Society is simply opposed in~principle to any kind of review from any quarter wlzaterer. Yet, Dr. Luerbach him- expect E certain amount of skepticism and that it is extreeely =important that hic colleagues in the scientific co=anity not only see tfe ratcrial but also have thc opportunity to voice their opinions. Berliaps there is a; differencc of opinion between tl e Cancer Society an4 Dr. l:ucrbach on. this point. Accordi:np, to }•'o.-. Lewis, the r.cientists "are he;;ol!c'en •onl~y to tl c scientifi:c corrnuni.ty at large and to the integrita it rep+_'ese»ts." it r.ec,lt: to u!s that the /,rcrlc:n Cancer Secicliy, ' t . .. an or,;anizaCi_on t:upported by publ ic don :t.ons, is nlso Lel;cld:n to t1i'; i.ru';11.c at la±'i;e to p:'c-',-!cit. co;:q,lQic info:--;:,r,tio:i t-110u1. the

=12- rescaich u•;oich it fi.nances, expceinlly in vi-ew of the fact that .the Cancer Society has released news of the study to the public media. Since the validity of the Cancer SocietyRs public com.ments of the work, it see-,z irresponsible for the Society to refuseto that it should permitthis independent review. Accord'S.n&ly, we . The Tobacco Institutic has preparedandplzced for publicat'ion tomorrow an .:dvcrtiseme•at s,*hich describes our di.sagreer.aent with ths Cancer Society.' This adver- tisement concludes with the statement: "if the Cancar Society continues to deny access to this recent eork, . . . :.. .. -• .-F"'~ ve believe this will serve as convincing evidence to . 0 . • ~ th(! i)ub1'ic, lay and scientilfic, that the data will not -r-ui;>>or.t the c1LcSsti:unc ezde at the Soci_ety"s l:aldorf-Mttorie conferc:^ce." 1?c beli:eve ti,at this in a fair i:nference mici tloai: the public ou,f;l~r to be given this zicti perslccti:vc

on the dnF SLudy, The Tobacco Institute will. explorc other aVcmrco •r • . uitich this data may be obtained for expcrt examina- a proceed'ing under the Public Information Act. We are _ .,;a:_. . . .. . We intet.d to counteract f ny further publicity iuc tobacco industry has committed appro>:?s.ately - $35,000,00) for r.esea.ch on tobacco and health. We have estiablish•cd excellcnt research programs through the Council for Tobacco Recearch - U.S.1:. and the ljcericun hi^dical Asr:ociation Education and Research Youndat£on. Thece two organizati'ons have'distri_buted researclr grlnts to some 300 .cicntf.sta in mediovl schooi's, hospitals and research £r.stitut.<ons. The tobacco 'i.!udustry reco;iri.: cr. and rcccptc: a respoersi- bility to ;:r.osptc the progrncs of ind:p"ne?cnt r.cfcrzLiti.c rur;c:rch I

that resPonsi" = . _. _ c:nd• hc~.lth. . I'n discliflrE,in~ . - in the £~ead oi tobacco has spc'nt and coti in~~ _ : i_n au s tr :. we bclieve 01 a t the ~ ~„~y • : b S lity r,yanizAti:on in We are - . ., ,thcr group. , ~.~~"°"`' 'ort, and to caoPerate th ~ and ef i eXist about e wh i Cl~ ~~c~ the 9aPs in T:novled~ f Pl ivat e , to . - -' £or such xescarch than unY ..-.«'-'°° to £T'ena ~re ~r~one5 ------- enlarging. co~itncnts in tlais area are Ch~ U;ited Stato~• ~r nd considerable money~ to contfnue to exPe r . .. . _ _ . , .. .. - - . .~---- ~axett:e : 1 0 oducc ci and to intr am Pleased to ha~°~; ~,~itn ne : . ._ . _ . . 4;ith .broadexperxence: in cancer distir.?,uj-slie6 sci cntists :. . =. You tVo rescarch on tobacco ~~c.bly' unParaT.l.cled 1:ltov; e6&e in .lese4rch and Pro ` . -..- . _ .. , . : . . - snd hcnl-th. ),~:rector of L4boraLol-ics t : ~ he~.~{)n C~ SOi,LT~=1 u~~' 1 1~o~k al:d Clcca Prof"', T.cilox lzj ~ 1 3~o'sPita7. C+~T~t".lb tlnc iCx<<r;s i nd SL1rSconS ~t l,r~ttl t11 ?~~tl: ,lo:,~ • of SUUChcrn Col nia Sc11 ,c) 7, o. -4 ® :~w 4;.1 ~•tit ? ,:+'a-t *T:~•~ h OC. V t t or Past yc3 t'r5~ >' . T~ -cL Son,Terc, hti s bccn rese"Y~ ~R .yl''~".Lt ~ ...i:~nsY. +"~~i. • `• nnc(!aZ~~Ch. or T~~1~cc" '• ~ ~~'=~ e ~ouric ~ 4 ~ ; : J~ [ ....vy,S.] ;•

- 15 br. Arthur F-srst is a 1;I)U f:r, I)i.)-ectoI• of the Iitstftutc~ of Chemical I;ioloCy at the Uni.vcXSity of Sxn rranci.sco. t1e is presently on leuve from that post and is a Research Consultant o the Council for Tobacco P,escs.rch. he r.Ir,o holds_ the po,ition of Clinical Professor of Pathology at Co1Lunb'r.a University. r-~j /" t.j (