Tobacco Documents Online

0 c,' A-? (..') [ I L No` one docs not announce tl•r, discovery of gold - I " which was the ACS' approach in the matter - without ~,:_ - , r - 1 l l I)nel a 5l1L eC ~ „,.,,... ~,..,. .,... ..- - -- -tleated as s;~ch b~~ the uJess, including the New lork Tin)es, ~ - -- ~ , That, necdless to say, N~~as very bi~~ news and was f:- y deepl~~ committed i;.o t'lie hypothesis that sn~cl'.i:)o causes lung c-u)ecr, calPe a pJ•e~s.conferenc~~ in \e~~• 1 o1•k City at which,, in effect, they shouted, "ra)rel-a !" At last, *hey said, t~ro nc searchers ~~•~orlYing-under an A(;S gJ~aJrt ('one an ACS vice president)~~ ha~i succeeded in producing llunmcance~~g of the human variety in laLoratonr a))in)als (beagle dob 3)' thr.ough ciz~a~'ett~e smoke inhalatiun. 1 ' Oy~~F'ehl~nar~• 5, officers of the An-.erica~n Cancer Society, 11 through the ~forced inlialation of ci;;arette sn:ol:e. r Of primary significance inthe question of cigarette smoking's relationship to lung cancer - aqI~estion that hasunderstand.,lJly eng;rged the inicJrest of the tobacco in- dustry, the »>edical' profession and the gene)•al public since it was rai: cd 30 ~•~ean, a;o~ - has been the continuous in- ahilit~~of ionluni:, rable researchers Nrorhin, steadily ~l1)ring~ this period to: 'produce lung cancer in laboratory animals , . , ~_ . _- .i.. . _ ,~_ ~. ~ Fl -- --- -- --'_-------._~_~__..... ~ ln•ess for their i))terl~)~eUation.of t14c re~earc'h %~,~iti)o;Jtt first having sn'Sn)ittc(l tl:e ~~~onlc for re~'ic~~' h~• a p;mel of their pJ ofc :,at,J ,1 l~eeJ~s. )): TJi. ~ rej~ ci icn) t~~, o iroTl~s a^ o Fr~, tht~ Jt;~aJU)al of tlae A..~. .. . dlrulin•tl ~4','n^1 tl: ') (1f ll~ ~ {~C! )"'P'fOllo"1U1)rr a ) ) .. o n,iu~~~~ ~,J . a nail~17~C ui U1L W l.. ~LJ 1L \la~ at the time of all the fanfare that the scientific proof was readily av.ilable. - ~i Nearly six months have gone bl•, the proof has not been fonthcom,inn and daily it' becomes more difficult to resist the , suspicion that theye is more than a hit o£ uneertAnty here, a sus)icioJr encouraged by more thr:n just the time lapse. EiicouJ,a;cel, specifin,L'y, by: A. The publiclh< expressed opi;lion of ind'ependent and reeogJaieed authorities in the fields ofmedical hathology and biology Uhat the ACS-sponsoreu study; as repWed to I date, does' not prove~vhat the ACS says it proves (that ' smoking c at:ses lung czncer), that ii) point of fact it provcs nothing at all, except pe.rhaps the ttncle.ntiou,ness of the ACS wJdert ;king. B. The persistent refusal of th; Cnneer Society to acecd: foa tobacco industry reqIJ st tiltatt the d6lta an;lmetha,,lo)d ay of ihsbc gle exl,erinu nt, UemaGleIpul)1ic-e for ea<:m:r.ation by independent exl)ert;. - C:'The rejectionW 1Ian-Ly tliepJ•esUit;ious New 1?ng-; )hJJd JknarJnal of .lledicii)e of a pape)?on the lieagle exl?t') i-I ment subJnitted f;,r hublicati'n)r h* - the-AE.;S researchers, for the understood of their failn;•e to co:1form: wiih pJ ofcs:ia)~ 1! st..n~la~ u_~ in rcel int; 1Ublicitn•in ti1'oepopul:a•

if an unanimous decisic n of the Journal's 12 scientific re0ewers that photographs sub- mitted to sub,faaltiate the clairn of cancer development Athe beagiw.s in fact were not conclusive of mali;n;incy. ° E. The most recent statement by one of tbo researchers, Dv. & (Xqler Hammond; a vice president of - lie American Cancer Society, that, contrmv to the Soc:ety's o2•i;- ipal claini that lung cancer had been pro- duced in 12 of SE "snloking" dogs, cancerr coul(li be proved to have developecl! in "just two" of those dogs„ a concession Dr. Hain- mond apparently ma de after learning that the AMA reviewers had conclucled, on the p~=,~lPnre me,ented; that cancer had been -1 l•.-tl 7~`!1\l?iu' v.r the r,. ..=y.,. nrra . 1Jf~VM1I'll 1~V..-. u ' The editor of the Ab'IA. Journal h<s talcen1)ains to point out that his pub]ica- tion's reiection of the ACS study is in a sense tentative sialce the possibil# remains, despite the inadequacy of the: evidence sub- mittec/, that the authors (lid in fact prove what their sponsors say they' nroved; an1 that the AIMA Journal iemains wiSling to p-abligh their putat ve findings at any t'iine the researchers are able to satisfy iaK re- bewers as to tlicir validity. There are„ of comse, delkate relatiow ships involved here and the A1riA, much to its credit, has exe7•cised its judgment im- partiolly -lid honestly N ~hileexpressinl;-A understandabl.•, Nvith agreat deal of dis- cretion, which in this rase a.hpcars to hase been a shecial, eff )rtl toavoirl Uhe appeao•- ance of fiir<,lity in it:s ycjcction of the l,aa0e paper so as to•sparc tlic influential hmeri- can Cancer SoMy and its - researchers embarrassment mid to discourar;c the to- Y,accy indtistry?s opl;ort:ani;:iT on Uhat TCJCctQOn. It is rcasonabli to assun:e i1rmt the AItiT'A,. Journal woulilWMA,, ~•econsiclen fo~• l~unb. lication any nc sca.~chof such maj.n SIPiil'i- eance on the '..'.m-!alic•e of the ani0iol, thclt'. Irorc convineii:c; cvicl(ince could~ bc pre- /S-64 senter. On the other hand, that the evalua- t'iorr of the evidence submitted! in tHs case should be conaideredui•ticulanl3l teltati.n•.ei.s not so sclf-eAdhnt. The 12' rcviewe1•s e::- ^minecll the phot'ographs of slides taken of the beagles" lnng tissuc and agreed unani.= mously that conclusive evidence of cancer was laclting. Such photograhhs,, it must be understood, are.routinely accepted in~ niedi- cal reseai~~chas capable, mhen prepared con- nectl;.', of acl'e7uate]y reprodueing original slide nraterial. AncU there is no reason to believe that these researchers, see:c.rrg in- uepende.nt validation of a sushect claim, would subinit less than the most persuasive evidence available. At t.hisioint in, a less important debate, one would sinaply say to the "Put up oi shut up:" hut that lcincl of talk iJ 7t,l!%ivtL,l'' - t`^ f~~.~10 lc_~11P 1'P- ' F ca~~ a~., ..".:__ . jects a partisan approach, and the men woi•hinc* toward its scttlementJ, incliidii,a those ioi, tlu: ACS, are to be presumed sin- cere, honest and compet.ent„ thoirgh not in- falliblo, that kind of mutual respect being essenli'al to a cooheratA'it•e search for the answers we are all hoping for, thot?gh not, wehop ; to the i;:)int of cont'riving• them. P egrettahly, those 1?i•ofessionally engagc,l! in support of the smol:ine,--caui:es-cmncer h~~,poth~esis have not been a1~o~•~e questiioninf~ the integrity of scienti'sts who cha]1enl;e their po-siRiol. And now the ACS,, by its m~~+i1.~int beaOho-in-thc-hat- trick (Nmt'You 5ee 12, eount 'em; foll<s, 12 bcaAleti ::ncl' now - Presto - nom= you see onh' two. IN o; sonn.N; yoiu can't examine the hat.) and its gen^rA sleiight-of-liress-rel'erise pci•_`or- rnr n:c, in•;ite,, unfortun^t'e , qpestio;:;.as to its own reliabilsty as a voice in this vitaL cdiscuFsiom It W as nnieh to prevent this lcincl of Vu1gr.i'L<^.tiol7 of the (Itscll.a)Ctn as to shC(1 rrraNitnutlt lie;lht on th~~ sub,l~-ct that the Aaneric,ln A nc•c:• Socirty mu:,t sUoV 131 vin,; coy vi(1 rcvczi in cletailto all i~aicuc~trdpr r% what it Wis ae:u:dl\•y fotn:cl out, auwl wli,•tt it liusn't found out, ahout ~o ::crious a ~nccLc ~l question. ~...~.,..:...~...~....... _