The Cigarette Papers "d0e14940"

Science And Public Relations From A Lawyer's Perspective

On June 16, 1981, in response to a request from Ernest Pepples, William Shinn, an attorney at Shook, Hardy, and Bacon, sent a "Confidential Memorandum" to Pepples, listing various events in the area of smoking and health over the past few years and categorizing them as either "plus" or "minus" items {2130.02}. Two days later, Pepples sent the same material, essentially verbatim over his own signature, with the list of items reformatted, in a "Privileged Memorandum" to C. I. McCarty, BATUS's chairman and chief operating officer, with a copy to Dr. I. W. Hughes, B&W's chairman and CEO {2130.01}. The complete text of the memorandum follows:

The following list of what I am calling "plus" and "minus" items is certainly not complete (nor in any particular order) but should be illustrative of smoking and health "events" over the past few years, sometimes having a great deal of coverage and sometimes not. I know you asked for "science" only but I have included a few other items for completeness. The designation of "plus" in some cases should probably read "mixed".

PLUS		MINUS
1.	Paper by Samuel S. Epstein and others at a meeting of the American Public Health Association late last year reported as contradicting the hypothesis that smoking is the overwhelming causal factor for lung cancer and explaining that occupational exposure was not adequately recognized when the major statistical studies on lung cancer were commenced.	1.	White/Froeb, Hirayama and Greek paper on non-smokers—(much publicity).
2.	Defeat of 1978 and 1980 initiative propositions in Dade County [Florida] and in California.	2.	Surgeon General reports.
3.	Articles by McDonald and Bea van den Berg on women and lung cancer (may have appeared only in the Tobacco Observer for February 1980).	3.	Federal Trade Commission reports.
		4.	Fourth World Conference on Smoking and Health (not much publicity).
		5.	Gary Friedman paper on quitting smoking and reduction of heart disease.
		6.	Louisville Courier articles on smoking.
		7.	Stories on fires reportedly caused by cigarette smoking.

― 353 ―

PLUS		MINUS
4.	Wharton study on financial impact of tobacco (1980)—(Not smoking and health).	8.	State Mutual Life Assurance Company study (1979) purporting to show that smokers die younger than non-smokers.
5.	Hirayama error and Garfinkel paper.	9.	January 1978—Califano unveils his anti-smoking plan.
6.	Seltzer editorial on heart disease and smoking.	10.	CAB hearings on smoking in aircraft.
7.	Sterling letter re series in Courier-Journal .	11.	Senator Kennedy introduces bill on smoking including program to deter children from smoking (1978).
8.	Gori comments re "Less Hazardous Cigarettes" (1978).	12.	Birth control pill warning.
9.	Other reports (e.g., Hammond) on low "tar" and nicotine cigarettes.	13.	FTC CO testing.
10.	Dr. Peter Bourne statement on smoking [special circumstances].	14.	Government report on smoking as an addiction and inclusion of tobacco in DSM III under "tobacco use disorder".
11.	Dr. Huber letters and comments on smoking and health made after going to University of Kentucky [caveat re later developments].	15.	Smoking and byssinosis.
12.	Jones hearing (1978)—lack of evidence tobacco smoke harmful to the average non-smoker (but little publicity).	16.	AMA-ERF report.
13.	1978—Superdome decision by Judge Gordon upheld by Federal Court of Appeals.	17.	Aronow on CO and non-smokers.
14.	Eysenck's recent book emphasizing personality traits as accounting for susceptibility to cancer. After a review of literature concluded that smoking is not clearly linked to cancer. (Dr. Eysenck is a psychologist at the London Institute of Psychiatry.) His book has generated a number of articles about the "rekindling of the smoking debate."	18.	Smoking and asbestos.
15.	Washington University research (St. Louis coverage)—General research.	19.	Queries re "advantage" of low "tar" and nicotine cigarettes.
16.	Court opinion cigarettes are not under FDA.	20.	Additives inquiries. {2130.01, pp. 1–2}
17.	Letters re Aronow—(no publicity).

― 354 ―

Many of the "positive" scientific developments involved publications by individuals who were being quietly supported by the tobacco industry (e.g., Seltzer, Sterling, Gori, Huber, Eysenck; see chapter 8). In addition to providing an insight into the wide range of issues facing the industry at the time, this memorandum once again demonstrates the extent to which the lawyers were dominating B&W's corporate affairs. As the memorandum indicates, the original request for information was for "'science' only," and yet the information was sought from an attorney rather than a scientist. Of course, there was a good reason for this: as discussed in chapter 8, the lawyers were directing much of the scientific research, and Shinn was one of the principal actors in that endeavor. Again, even assuming a scientist should not have compiled such a list, one might expect that a public relations person would have done so, but then the lawyers were pretty much in charge of that aspect of the business as well. One item in the list stands out as an example of the inconsistency that exists between the tobacco industry's internal and public pronouncements on smoking issues. Despite the consistent claims by the industry that it does not advertise to attract children and that it believes smoking is an adult custom that children should not adopt, the memorandum lists a congressional bill, which included a program to deter children from smoking, as a "minus."