Reports that Matter

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.: Amended Final Opinion

Research Review Committee, Research Liaison Committee, and Industry

Section 26 of 129

Research Review Committee, Research Liaison Committee, and Industry

Research Committee 314. In February 1974, a consensus had developed among Defendants that an industry

committee should be established to review their support of medical research and to make recommendations as to the future course Defendants' support should take. At a CTR meeting, Lorillard, through its President Curtis Judge, agreed to participate in an increased budget for CTR only on condition that such a review of industry research be undertaken. BWX0007549-7588 (US 86832); ARU1130828-0904 (US 86773).

  1. One set of suggested guidelines from the mid-1970s for an Industry Committee for the Review of Industry's Overall Independent Scientific Research Effort was: (1) to reconsider the CTR research program, both SAB grants and Special Projects; (2) to reconsider non-CTR research projects undertaken by one or more individual tobacco companies; and (3) to consider the establishment of a means of coordinating the research undertaken in (1) and (2). 2015040937-0938 (US 20322); 2015040955-0955 (US 20323); TIOK0032723-2724 (US 63004); 2015057143-7144 (US 87693); 03659038-9039 (US 29304); 2015057135-7136 (US 86379); 2015057134-7134 (US 86380); 2010070308-0308 (US 86381); 2015040955-0955 (US 20323); 2015057145-7150 (US 86384); CTRMM015322-5327 (US 79854).
180
  1. William Smith, Chairman of the Tobacco Institute's Executive Committee, wrote in April 1974, that agreement had been reached with each of the major manufacturers as to their representative on the "committee to study the research programs funded by our industry, both through CTR and independent projects." Smith reported that David Hardy of Shook, Hardy & Bacon would chair the committee; Horace Kornegay and William Kloepfer would represent the Tobacco Institute; and William Gardner and Leonard Zahn would represent CTR. Smith stated that the members of the committee were charged with the responsibility for studying industry research programs and research projects funded outside of CTR, such as those at Harvard, Washington University, and UCLA, and reporting their recommendations to the chief executives of the six major cigarette companies -- American, B&W, Liggett, Lorillard, Philip Morris, and Reynolds. Meetings of the Industry Research Committee began on May 7, 1974. After meeting several times in 1974, the committee recommended that a Research Liaison Committee be appointed to serve indefinitely to achieve "a coordinated and informed overview of all industry research." CTRMN015328-5329 (US 21600); ZN22613-2614 (US 64796); 03659035-9036 (US 29303); LWODJ9055585-5585 (US 26006) (Confidential); LWODJ9055586-5587 (US 26007) (Confidential); LWODJ9055585-5585 (US 26006) (Confidential); LWODJ9055586-5587 (US 26007) (Confidential); BWX0007549-7588 (US 86832); 03659013-9016 (US 29300); LWODJ9055779-5781 (US 26008) (Confidential);
181

LWODJ9055531-5532 (US 26009) (Confidential); 2015040862-0863 (US 36652); ZN22408-2408 (US 86391); CTR98CONG01187-1189 (US 21137); 03540217-0225 (US 22294); LWODJ9055501- 5505 (US 25957) (Confidential); 03659013-9016 (US 29300).

  1. Creation of the Research Liaison Committee was approved at a meeting of the Tobacco Institute on October 3, 1974, as a successor to the Research Review Committee which had been established in April 1974. The newly formed Research Liaison Committee existed through early 1978. The aims and functions of the Research Liaison Committee were to devise and implement fiscal and peer review for institutional grants, and to consider and make recommendations with respect to proposals for institutional and other research projects in light of all research efforts in and outside of the industry. Members of the Research Liaison Committee were encouraged to attend meetings with CTR in order to keep informed about its plans and projects. Stevens WD, 29:8- 19; Zahn PD, Cipollone v. Liggett, 12/16/86, 138:2-139:24, 148:12-16; Zahn PD, Cipollone v. Liggett, 12/17/86, 208:20-209:1; Zahn PD, Massachusetts v. Philip Morris, 5/28/98, 106:11-22, 114:14-115:4; Zahn PD, Richardson v. Philip Morris, 12/16/98, 375:3-10; Kornegay PD, Cipollone v. Liggett, 8/17/94, 196:25-201:2, 208:10-212:18, 213:8-217:8; LWODJ9055332-5332 (US 25953) (Confidential); BWX0007549-7588 (US 86832); BWX0002609-2611 (US 36165); ARU113 0828- 0904 (US 86773); 2015057125-7125 (US 86400); 955002251-2251 (US 32354); 01404441-4441 (US 86401); 70124410-4414 (US 31512); 1003719192-9192 (US 35906); 503673145-3146 (US 86405); 1003719175-9179 (US 86406); PM010430-0437 (US 86408); 1003712682-2688 (US 86409); 1000255997-6001 (US 20086).

  2. At its January 1975 meeting, the Research Liaison Committee decided that the expenses of considering the feasibility of research projects and proposals would be funded through the CTR Special Projects fund and funded by those companies agreeing to the research study. The Committee also decided that participating companies would pay for the auditing expenses for the institutional projects at Harvard, UCLA, and Washington University, and discussed problems regarding funding of the Harvard/Huber research project at Harvard Medical School. BWX0002613- 2614 (US 36166); BWX0007549-7588 (US 86832).

182

  1. A report dated November 19, 1977, written by Janet Brown, attorney for American from Chadbourne & Parke, summarized the activity of the Research Liaison Committee from its inception as the Research Review Committee in April 1974 through 1977. Brown advised that American might wish to maintain a representative on the Research Liaison Committee after the departure of its representative, Cyril Hetsko. BWX0007549-7588 (US 20286).

  2. In 1978, the budget and direction of the CTR was again an area of concern for Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants proposed that yet another committee be convened again "to take up the general question of what kind of research the industry should be into through CTR or elsewhere." A Lorillard document dated April 21, 1978, also articulated the need for a new committee:

We have again "abdicated" the scientific research directional management of the Industry to the "Lawyers" with virtually no involvement on the part of scientific or business management side of the business.

Industry representatives held meetings and reported to the companies' General Counsels. The name of this new committee was the Industry Research Committee, which essentially performed the same functions as the prior Research Liaison Committee. 01346204-6205 (US 34532) (emphasis in original); Stevens WD, 29:20-38:15; 95539849-9850 (US 56829); TIOK0032721-2722 (US 63003);

183

BWX0007531-7548 (US 36238).

  1. An internal letter from Ernest Pepples, B&W Vice President and General Counsel, to Joseph E. Edens, Charles I. McCarty, I.W. Hughes and DeBaun Bryant dated April 4, 1978, discussed the new committee. Pepples reported:

That Committee, as you know, has a number of disciplines and attitudes represented including research and development, public relations, legal and one CEO (Curt Judge). It is the proper place to take up the general question of what kind of research the industry should be into through CTR or elsewhere. It can also deal with the issue of contract research versus grant research.

680212421-2423 (US 54024); 682338651-8653 (US 22899).

  1. The new Industry Research Committee met on November 6, 1978. In attendance were: Ernest Pepples, B&W; Charles Tucker, Reynolds; Arnold Henson, American; Janet Brown, attorney with Chadbourne & Park; James Bowling, Philip Morris; Edwin Jacob, attorney for CTR; and Donald Hoel, attorney with Shook, Hardy & Bacon. An even larger meeting was held on December 13, 1978, and meetings continued throughout 1979, 1980 and 1981 which were attended by Defendants' representatives and industry attorneys. With respect to the direction and role of CTR, "[i]t was agreed that the CTR role would be one of basic research into the disease areas that have been statistically associated with smoking. CTR would not, however, engage in research designed to test the effects of tobacco smoke or tobacco products in animal or human systems," contrary to the promises made in the original Frank Statement. Stevens WD, 29:20-36:9; 2075318262-8268
184