Tobacco Products Liability Project
[Correspondence from Janet Brown to Arnold Henson Regarding Dr. G.N. Schrauzer's Research Funding Inquiry]
Abstract
Discusses Dr. G.N. Schrauzer's inquiry regarding funding for research on the possible "cancer protecting effects of selenium." Mentions Dr. Schrauzer's statement that "'Tobacco Companies should be interested in research that would help disseminating the notion that cigarettes are after all not as evil as they have been made to appear, and that diet is a far more important lung-cancer controlling factor." Notes that Dr. Schrauzer seems to be unaware of the possibility that selenium present in cigarette paper acts as an irritant or a carcinogen. Discusses Dr. Schrauzer's educational background, publications, and previous research interests. Suggests that Dr. Schrauzer's inquiry be forwarded to CTR. Enclosures are not included.
Fields
- Date Loaded
- 08 Jan 2003
- Type
- Correspondence
- Named Person
- Heimann, Robert Karl, Ph.D. (ATC President and CEO; CTR Director)PR Committee for the Tobacco Institute and on the Executive Committee as a CTR Director.
- Hockett, Robert Casad, Ph.D. (CTR Scientific Director)Scientific Director of the Council for Tobacco Research from 1972-1974 (WSJ 2/11/93; Allman complaint). Bio-Research Institute BRI conducted a study for the CTR. When Syrian hamsters were exposed to smoke twice a day for 59 to 80 weeks, 40% of those of a cancer-susceptible strain and 4% of a resistant strain developed malignant tumors (WSJ 2/11/93). Before publishing the study in 1974, BRI's founder, Frederic Homberger, sent a manuscript to Robert Hockett, then scientific director of the CTR. Dr. Homberger says he had to do so because halfway through his study, the CTR had changed it from a grant to a contract so they could control publication. They were quite open about that (WSJ 2/11/94. Soon thereafter, Hockett and CTR lawyer Edwin Jacob went to Dr. Homburger's summer house in Maine. Hockett and Jacob did not want BRI to call anything cancer, they wanted it to be "pseudo-epitheliomatous hyperplasis," a euphemism for lesions preceding cancer (WSJ 2/11/93). Dr. Homberger said no, this is not right, it is cancer. Jacob told Dr. Homberger that BRI would never get a penny more if the paper was published without the changes. At the last minute, Dr. Homberger changed the final proofs to read "microinvasive" cancer, a microscopic malignancy. Nevertheless, BRI was never funded by the CTR again (WSJ 2/11/96) Hochett made a statement, as scientific director of the CTR circa February 1972 that neither tobacco and health research in general, nor that of the Council for Tobacco Research has established that tobacco use or cigarette smoking in particular is a major health hazard (Allman complaint, pp. 41-42). Robert C. Hockett was Scientific Director, Vice President and Research Director of CTR. See Bio-Research Institute, TTLA Almanac - Names. (N.M.'s CTR Who's Who)
- Schrauzer, Gerhard N., Ph.D. (CTR Special Projects; Chemist, U of CA, San Diego)Defense
- Named Organization
- American Tobacco Company
- *Council for Tobacco Research-- U.S.A. Inc. CTR (Formerly Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC))Created and funded by the tobacco industry to award grants to study of the link between smoking and disease. Part of a four decade effort to cast doubt on the links between smoking and disease.
- Monsanto
- Shell Development Company
- University of California San Diego
- Author (Organization)
- Chadbourne & Parke (Law firm for American Tobacco Co.)law firm for The American Tobacco Company in New York.
- Author
- Brown, Janet C. (CTR Director, Attorney, Chadbourne & Parke)CTR Director 1/31/81
- Recipient (Organization)
- American Brands
- Recipient
- Henson, Arnold (ATC General Counsel)Defense
Document Images
Arnold Hanson, ~sq.
American Brands, Inc.
245 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
August i?, 1976
Dear Arnold.'
By letter of July 8, 1976, G.N. Schrauzer,
Professor of Chemistry, University of California, San Diego
wrote to "Directors of American Tobacco Company" requesting
funds to continue research respecting alleged cancer-pro-
tecting qualltles of the element selenium ingested in the
diet. Professor Schrauzer asks, in the alternative:
"[if] you cannot help us, would you perhaps let me know
whom I should write?" His reasons for requesting funds are:
"We have obtained statistical evidence
which suggests that the male lung cancer
mortalities in different countries are
dependen~.more strongly on diet than on the
cigarette consumptlon~ In. partlcul~r, we ~....
h~ve 8~scove~eaa ei~nlficant inverse
association of the male lung-cancer
w~rtalltles with the per-capita consumption
Of seafoods. Seafoods are rich sources of
~rsce minerals, particularly of selenium, an
element which we have shown to possess the
propeEtlos of a cancer-protecting agent. We
believe that persons eating a lot of seafood
have a lower =isk of developing lung cancer;
we also hope that we shall eventually be able
tO make well-founded recommendations for a
diet that would lower the lung-cancer risk
of smokers and non-smokers alike."
MNATPRIV00038768
Subject to Claims of Privilege and Confidentiality:
Produced Pursuant to Court Orders in S~te ofl~'I~n~esota, et al. v. Phili Morris,__
et al.
~m~nold Henson, Esq.
-2- &ugust 27, 1976
Xe thinks that =Tobacco Companies should be interested in
research that would help disseminating the notion that
cigarettes are after all not as evil as they have been made
to appear, and that diet is a far more important lung-cancer
contro111ng factor."
Professor Schrauzer is a Ph.D. in chemiat~y who
was born in Czechoslovakia in 1932, did his studies at
Munlch--where he also did research work and taught, for a
perlod--and who later went on to be research associate for
Monsanto Chemlcal Company (1957-5%) and research supervisor
of Shell Development Company (1964-68). He has held his
present position since 1968.
The articles of Professor Schrauzer that I have
been able ~o collect and review do not sugges~ that he has
any driving interest in tobacco as such. Nor do they give
much clue to his views on tobacco and health. A letter in
the British Medical Journal of i December 1973, of which
he is a co-author, states (p. 549}:
"In agreement with earlier studies, we also
noted a slightly higher incidence of maternal
smoking during pregnancy in the sudden infant
death group (one-tail, P-0.OS); other reports
indlcace increased mortality during the first
year of life in infants whose mothers smoked
during pregnancy."
Among the reprints enclosed with his July 8 letter (copies
of all of which you have) is an article entitled "Cancer
Mortality Correlation Studies. II. Regional Associations
of Mortalities wi~h the Consumptions of Foods and other
Commodities." The date and journal of publication do not
appear.. ~n this article, Professor Schrauzer does not
seem to me tohave found much'more.in the clgarette-lung
cancerarea't~an that theclgare~te conaump~ion~of various.
countries does not correlate very well over-all with lung
cancer mortality in those countries--a fact we have known
for a very long time. He states that while this is
unexplained, "the present data should not be interpreted
to suggest that lung cancer is not associated with
cigarette smoking" (p. 41).
On the basis of the material we have as I see
it, it is by no means impossible that Professor Schrauzer
believes that "cigarettes are after all not aa evll as
~hey have been made to appear." However, he might equally
come to the conclusion, it seems to me, that cigarettes
their a11eged cancer-causlng effects.
MMATPRIV00038769
Subject to Claims of Privilege and Confidentiality:
Produced Pursuant to Court Orders in State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al.
A~nold Henson, Esq.
-3- August 17, 1%76
As you may know, theue has in recent years been
considerable controversy--of which Professor $chrauzer
appears unawere--wi~h respect to selenium in cigarette
paper. The questions involved concern the form selenium
takes in the paper, whether it is transZerred to main
stream smoke, and whether it acts as an ~rrltan~, a
carcinogen, or an anti-carcinogen. Dr. Hocket~ at CTR is
fully familiar with the matter.
Hockett tells me ~hat CTR has not, to h~s knowledge,
received any letters direct from Professor Schrauzer. None
addressed to any other company has been referred to CTR.
The CTR procedure with respect to referred
write the author for more biographical
data, giving him the opportunity to submit concrete research
proposals. Any proposals received are referred to various
committees for action in light of their research merit and
CTR research priorities. Work on alleged cancer protecting
effects of selenium could be of possible interest.
On balance, I would think Dr. Schrauzer's letter
appropriate for handling via the CTR machinery. Accordingly,
I would reco~end that Mr. Heimann, or whoever he wishes to
designate, write Professor Schrauzer that his letter and
enclosures have been fo~arded to the CTR for consideration.
A possible form of such a letter is enclosed. I have told
Hockett that in the event this step is taken I will send
him Schrauzer's letter and enclosures together with copies
of the material on $chrauzer which we have collected. If
the Company would prefer to send Hookett the Schrauzer
leUter directly, I can forward the other materials separately.
Sinc.erely,
Janet C. Brown
Etc.
MNATPRIV00038770
Subject to Claims of Privilege and Confidentiality:
Produced Pursuant to Court Orders in State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al.
