Montreal Research Conference, 1967

At the research conference held in Montreal in October 1967, participants discussed, among other topics, the applicability of mouse skin painting in their research.

The meeting agreed that it would be worthwhile to make a cigarette with lower biological activity on mouse skin painting, provided this did not adversely affect the position with respect to irritation and other factors. It was recognized that this implied certain assumptions about the relevance of mouse skin painting. However, it was agreed that it was unlikely this test would be replaced by cheaper, shorter and more meaningful tests for the next few years. In the light of this, the biological testing of new cigarettes must only be applied to those which have already satisfied the requirements of taste, cost, etc., and which are, therefore, considered viable commercial products. {1165.02, p. 3}

The participants agreed, then, that a less hazardous product must be similar enough to existing products that consumers would readily move to using it. Reduced toxicity in mouse skin painting was desirable, but secondary to marketing considerations. They considered a possibly "more meaningful" test, an inhalation test, but dismissed it because it was unlikely to become available.

The difficulties associated with inhalation studies were discussed and it was agreed that in the likely event that no satisfactory inhalation test could be found, it would be necessary to make an intuitive judgment based on cellular biochemical studies. {1165.02, p. 4}

Public statements from the industry have often pointed to the paucity of studies showing lung cancer from tobacco smoke inhalation as evidence

against a causal link. In contrast, these company scientists did not look on the lack of an inhalation model as evidence of the lack of a causal link. Rather, they saw it as a technical problem. They were prepared to make an "intuitive judgement" about the toxicity of specific materials in the absence of such a test.

The likely impact of the publication of results from independent research groups was also discussed. Specifically mentioned were programs at the University of Kentucky and at the Environmental Health Unit at Research Triangle in North Carolina. The minutes note,

[T]he fact that they will[,] of necessity, publish their results should lead to a reconsideration of our own policy on publishing and it was agreed that where results which we had obtained were likely to be covered by such publication, we ourselves should publish first. It was also agreed that we should cooperate in such programmes as far as possible. ...

It was felt that Kotin's work [at the Research Triangle facility] could well provide the occasion for the cooperation of the American industry at the scientific level, preferably without any involvement of the company lawyers. It was mentioned that these programmes could also be supported by the industry, perhaps at the expense of contributions to CTR [Council for Tobacco Research] or AMA [American Medical Association]. {1165.01, pp. 5–6}

The minutes acknowledge that research results from R&D ordinarily were not published but should be published in this instance to ensure that the company would receive credit for results that were going to become public in any case.

The expressed wish that scientific exchange could take place without lawyers is interesting, as is the preference for channeling B&W resources for external research away from the public relations—driven outlets of the CTR and the AMA. As described in chapter 8, lawyers were heavily involved in most tobacco industry—sponsored research. These comments seem to indicate friction between the scientists and the lawyers; later minutes from research conferences demonstrate that the scientists came to accept the lawyers' supremacy as a matter of fact.