Tobacco Documents Online

~ 17/06 ' 94 17: 03 '$`45 33323001 BURSON![ARSTELLER Q001/010 PJstergade 26 Telephone: + 45 33 32 30 00 DK-1100 Copenhagen K Telefax: + 45 33 32 30 ni . TELEFAX TRANSMISSION COVER vpf To: David Bushong 00 32 2 287 8048 Matt Winokur 001 212 907 58 49 Att: From: StiQ Albinus Date: 17 June 1994 Time: PM Pages to follow - incl. this cover: 49 C.C: Jim Lindheim~ Re: Sound Science Project and 8uropean Seminar in the autm- 1994 1. Preliminary Results of B-M's research Following David's request find attached the preliminary res-llts of the research B-M's offices in London, Paris, Milan, Madrid and Bonn has made. Note that the reports from our local offices are incomplete: From.France z have not yet received any reports on the interviews. The report from Bonn is in German (the reason is that I read and speak German). More interviews will follow from the LJK. Furthermore, I have not yet made a summary based on the reports. That will not follow before I have met with the Heidelbrg Appeal people (on 22 June) and zLSI (on 4 July). Please note that you must not use the outcome of this research and references to the interviews with scientists in a Philip Morris approach to the identified scientists because that could distort and jeopardize the entire operation. I have asked B-M's offices to identify 10-15 leading scientists per country with possible interest in the sound! science issue and out of these make interviews with 5 opinion leaders in order to test their opinions on~the following issues:

_ _ 17/06 '94 17:03 '$45 33323001 BURSONMARSTELLER - The need for sound science in public policy in~general - what specific issues are of particular interest to the scientists within this proposed framework? Do the scientists agree that there is a need for clear scientific criteria to evaluate human risk, e.g. standards on good epidemiology? what should standards on good epidemiology consist of? would the scientists like to be part of such a new European network? How should such a network be organised (firm legal structure vs loose network)? - Should the network only have scientists as members? Scientists And policy makers and media people? Would the scientists be willing to work in a network sponsored by a coalition of private companies? Will the scientists be interested in participating in a European symposium to discuss these issues, probably in September 1994? - what would be the possible receptivity of policy-makers to such a network? Possible critical issues? - List of relevant literature (lay and scientific) Although, I have not made a real summary yet, the following preliminary findings are of interest: • The scientists are interested in the general issue of sound science and agree that there is a need for establishing standards for good epidemiology. • The scientists are willing to consid'er participating in discussions/networks etc. on this and related issues if there are guaranteed independence from corporate sponsors. . • The scientists do not seem to resist taking part in a network sponsored by the industry as long as they have the freedom to act and speak independently. However, 2

17/06 '94 17:03 '$`45 33323001 BURSONMARSTELLfiR some of the scientists have themselves raised'the question of relations to the tobacco industry as a critical issue. • In general, the scientists say they are interested in considering taking part in a European seminar in September to discuss these issues. But many of them would like to get more information about the seminar (agenda, objectives, key speakers etc.) before deciding whether they would participate. 2. preparation of the Seminar I am working on the preparation of a European seminar on sound science and good epidemiology in the autumn 1994. Next week I will discuss with the secretariat of the Heidelberg Appeal whether they would like to take part/co- sponsor a European seminar on these issues with the specific objective to try to make a statement from the scientists calling for clear standards of good epidemiology when evaluating public health risk_ TASCC, and possibly ILST, should also take part in the event. if possible, a public statement calling for clear criteria for standards of good epidemiology could serve as a background/platform for a EU resolution on this issue- The timing of the seminar is of course critical. I will try to focus on September, but given the very short time it could be too early in order to achieve a seminar with representation of significant, credible, opinion leading scientists. Also note (see UK research) that the London School of Economics is hosting a European conference in September 1994 with a similar title pScientific Expertise in European Public Policy DebateK. We must be careful that the timing of the seminar does not conflict with this conference_ One of the keys to success will be that we, within the short time frame, will be able to identify and involve key speakers among well-known and outstanding scientists who can chair and speak at the seminar. If we want to arrange a successful seminar in the Autumn, we need to isend out a firat announcement/invitatiori no later than in mid-July. I will come back to you by the end of next week with the results of my discussions about the seminar with the people of the Heidelberg Appeal. 3. Corporate Sponsors After identifying scientists with interest in sound science and standards for good epidemiology, we willl approach corporate sponsors to part-sponsor the seminar in the 0003/010 Cz Oft 3

17/06 '94 17:04 $45 33323001 BURSONMARSTELLER autumn. The preliminary list of leading scientists, that we have identified, will serve as a demonstration to possible sponsors that there is a real opportunity for new activities in support of good science in public policy. it is absoulutely vital that we succeedin getting funding of the seminar from a broader group of sponsors than just Prt and Tetra Pak, because otherwise we would not be able to ensure the credibility of the seminar in relation to the scientists. And if the seminar has not got that credibility, the outcomes of the meeting will not have great value. Funding from a broader group of sponsors is also necessary, because, as I made clear to you on the phone, the existing budget does not cover the actual setting up and management of the seminar (venue, travel expenses, speakers, fees, management of seminar, press work etc.). During the next days I will talk to Marjorie Kraus and the CGI people about the budget for the seminar and how we plan the seminar with this short notice. 4. A New Coalition/Network After the seminar we will assess the feasibility of a new long-term coalition/network on the advancement of sound science in public policy or not. 5. Cooperation with APCO I intend to seek immediate coordination with APCO (Marjorie Kraus) in order to maximise our efforts in relation to the seminar. Best regards, Q004/010 AW, 4