STATE OF MINNESOTA AND BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA,
PLAINTIFFS,
V.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC., ET. AL.,
DEFENDANTS.
TOPIC: TRIAL
TRANSCRIPT
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET-NUMBER: C1-94-8565
VENUE: Minnesota
District Court, Second Judicial District, Ramsey
County.
YEAR: February
20, 1998
A.M. Session
JUDGE: Hon. Judge Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge
THE CLERK: All rise. Ramsey District Court is now in session, the Honorable
Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick now presiding.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
THE CLERK: Please be seated.
THE COURT: Good morning.
(Collective "Good morning.")
THE COURT: Counsel.
MR. CIRESI: Thank you, Your Honor.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
(Collective "Good morning.")
JAMES F. GLENN called as a witness, being previously
sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Good morning, doctor.
A. Good morning.
Q. Doctor, when we recessed yesterday, we were discussing
Exhibit
11434, which dealt with a discussion that had been held with Dr. Osdene
from Philip Morris. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And we were talking about the portion of the
document which related
to the CTR. Do you recall that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. It's down at the bottom of page two, doctor.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And there was a reference there that Dr. Wakeham
may be giving
advice to the president of Philip Morris. Do you recall that?
A. I -- I do.
Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 11586.
A. I have it.
Q. Now this is a memorandum dated December 8th,
1970, to J. F. Cullman
III from Dr. Wakeham; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it deals with the, quote, "'Best' Program
for CTR;" correct?
A. Yes.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibit 11586.
MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 11586.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now Mr. Cullman at the time was the president
of Philip Morris;
correct, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q. And in this memorandum Dr. Wakeham was discussing
what had
transpired at a November 30th, 1970 meeting of the CTR Executive Committee;
correct?
A. It so states.
Q. Have you reviewed this document?
A. No, sir.
Q. And the question that was being asked was what
kind of CTR program
is best for the industry; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And under number -- paragraph numbered one is
the stated objective
or purpose of CTR; correct?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And it's reported there that the purpose was
"To aid and assist
research into tobacco use and health, and make available to the public
factual information on this subject." Correct?
*2 A. That is what is stated.
Q. And it is further stated that that has been interpreted
narrowly so
that CTR was providing financial support for research by scientists
to
provide data about lung cancer, heart disease, chronic respiratory
ailments
and other diseases; correct?
A. That is what is written.
Q. In other words, what's written is that the research
was directed to
basic research about diseases generally; correct, sir?
A. That is what is stated.
Q. And Dr. Wakeham then reports to the president
of Philip Morris in
paragraph two as follows: "It has been stated that CTR is a program
to find
out, quote, the truth about smoking and health, end of quote. What
is truth
to one is false to another. CTR and the industry have publicly and
frequently denied what others find as 'truth."' Let's face it. We are
interested in evidence which we believe denies the allegation that
cigarette smoking causes disease. If the CTR program is aimed in this
direction, it is in effect trying to prove the negative, that cigarette
smoking does not cause disease. Both lawyers and scientists will agree
that
this task is extremely difficult, if not impossible."
Now sir, from 1954 when CTR was first formed through
1970, did your
investigation reveal that CTR, through the industry, was trying and
interested in evidence which would deny the allegation that cigarette
smoking causes disease?
A. No, sir.
Q. You do know that Dr. Little wrote that CRT's
Scientific Advisory
Board never accepted the hypothesis of the tar-guilt theory; correct?
A. I have seen this written, yes.
Q. Written by Dr. Little himself; correct, sir?
A. If the document is accurate, yes.
Q. Well do you have any reason to believe that Dr.
Little, when he
wrote that document, was lying?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that Dr. Little,
when he wrote
that document, was not intending to convey the truth --
A. No, sir.
Q. -- to the recipient of that document?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now the Surgeon General, sir, has found that
tar does have
carcinogens in it; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Many carcinogens; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Tens of carcinogens; correct?
A. I'm sorry, I missed your question.
Q. Tens of carcinogens; correct?
A. Tens of carcinogens?
Q. Yes. Fifty, 60 carcinogens; correct?
A. I don't know -- those are your words, Mr. Ciresi.
I don't know
whether there are tens or fifties or whatever. There are carcinogens
in
condensate of smoke.
Q. And so yesterday when you said that the scientific
community has not
found carcinogens in tobacco smoke, that wasn't correct; was it?
MR. WEBER: Objection, that's a misstatement of the
testimony.
Q. Carcinogens are cancer-producing; are they not?
THE COURT: Counsel, counsel, counsel, one moment,
please. Allow him to
answer your question.
You may answer the question asked.
A. "Carcinogen" is the term applied to substances
that can potentially
cause cancer, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they do cause cancer.
A
carcinogen is an agent that has the potential for cellular alteration,
but
it does not necessarily follow that cancer will result from exposure
to
that given agent.
*3 Q. But they -- they are cancer-producing particles;
correct? Whether
they do it in all cases or not, they're cancer-producing particles;
correct?
A. No, sir, that's not what I said. I said that
they have the potential
for causing cancer, but they --
Q. So that --
A. -- do not produce cancer necessarily.
Q. Necessarily. But they may produce cancer; correct?
A. May, in sufficient dose and sufficient length
of exposure. There are
many factors that relate to a carcinogen other than the fact that it
is a
noxious substance.
Q. And if they may produce cancer based on the length
of exposure, such
as persons smoking over a long period of time, and in sufficient doses,
then they are cancer-producing; correct?
A. No, sir, that -- you're distorting what I have
said.
Q. Doctor, you just said that they may produce cancer;
did you not?
A. I said that they may, yes.
Q. Okay. And if they then do in fact produce cancer
in some people,
then they would be cancer-producing; correct?
A. You're distorting what I've said. And I think
I said it very
plainly, I -- I don't see any reason to go over it again.
Q. With all due respect, sir, you did say that they
may produce cancer;
correct?
A. I did.
Q. All right. And I'm just asking you to assume,
then, that they do
produce cancer in a given person. Is it then a cancer-producing carcinogen,
in your judgment?
A. I've explained that, the difference between an
absolute and a -- and
a given -- and a -- and a possibility, and I don't know that I can
explain
it any better.
Q. I didn't ask you about an absolute, doctor. You
testified that the
particles in smoke may produce cancer; correct?
A. No, I didn't. I have not used the word "particle."
Q. Well what did you use?
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor. If he wants to
show him some
testimony, he should. This is asked and answered, repetitive.
THE COURT: I don't think we've got an answer yet.
Q. What word did you use, doctor?
A. "Substance."
Q. "Substance." I'll use your word.
And by "the substance," you mean the substance in
the smoke; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you don't think that's a particle in the
smoke; correct?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Okay. Well can it be a particle in the smoke?
A. There are particulate substances in smoke, but
they -- not all of
the substances in smoke are particles.
Q. Well, are there particles in smoke that cause
-- that may cause
cancer?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Okay. So you just don't have the expertise to
answer that question;
correct?
A. I don't believe anyone knows that, Mr. Ciresi.
Q. Have you read the '64 or '81 Surgeon General's
reports?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Let me hand you what has been marked, sir, as
Exhibit 3838.
MR. CIRESI: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Document handed to the
witness.)
Q. Is that the 1981 Surgeon General report?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you turn to page 34.
*4 A. I have it.
Q. And sir, is there a table there that states "Major
toxic agents in
the particulate matter of cigarette smoke?"
A. Yes.
Q. And is there an asterisk after the title there?
Do you see it?
A. Yes.
Q. And down at the bottom that asterisk says "Incomplete
list?"
A. Yes.
Q. And there's also other definitions, that C denotes
carcinogen; BC,
bladder carcinogen; TI, tumor initiator, CoC, cocarcinogen; and CT,
cilia
toxic agent; and T, toxic agent.
A. Yes.
Q. And then if you go down this partial list of
particulate matter of
cigarette smoke, are various substances listed which are contained
in
cigarette smoke that are either carcinogens, cocarcinogens, toxic agents
or
ciliatoxic agents or tumor initiators?
A. I see that.
Q. And that's biologic activity; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you understand what the meaning of "biologic
activity" is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do you understand it to mean?
A. It means that it has some activity that may alter
normal physiology
or normal pharmacology.
Q. It will change the cells.
A. Correct.
Q. And under "BioLogic activity" in this Surgeon
General's report from
1981 are listed the particulates that are cocancer -- cocarcinogens
or
carcinogens; correct, sir?
A. That is what is listed, yes.
Q. And do you recall yesterday that you stated as
follows, "And it's"
--
"Question: And it's the smoke constituents" --
MR. WEBER: We would request a reference, Your Honor.
MR. CIRESI: I'm sorry. Page 4497.
Q. "Question: And it's the smoke constituents which
contain the tar;
correct?
"Answer: Correct.
"And it's the tar which contains cancer-producing
particles; correct?
"Answer: I'm not sure about that because it's never
been proven.
"Question: You just don't know; correct?
"Answer: We just don't know. We still don't know.
"Question: You don't know; correct, sir?
"Answer: No, we don't.
"Question: I'm asking you. You do not know; correct?
"Answer: I do not know, nor does any member of the
scientific
community."
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's an improper
use of the
deposition. It's entirely consistent.
THE COURT: Do you have a question that you can ask?
MR. CIRESI: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now, sir, the members of the Surgeon General's
staff and those who
worked on the Surgeon General's report were members of the scientific
community; were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Learned members of the scientific community;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Esteemed members of the scientific community;
correct?
A. I suppose.
Q. And there are other Surgeon General reports which
have reported
carcinogenic particles of cigarette smoke condensate; aren't there?
A. Correct.
Q. Many reports; correct?
A. I've forgotten how many, but there are several.
Q. And in every one of those reports there were
esteemed members of the
scientific community which contributed to those reports; correct?
*5 A. I would agree with that.
Q. Now can you direct your attention, sir, please,
back to Exhibit
11586, which we were on. That's the memorandum from Dr. Wakeham to
the
president of Philip Morris, Mr. Cullman. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now in this memorandum in December of 1970, Dr.
Wakeham is setting
forth various options in terms of the type of research programs that
the
CTR might follow from that point forward; isn't he?
A. Correct.
Q. Option A, option B and option C; correct?
A. I see those.
Q. And option A was to aim the program in the future
at contributing to
the search for the causes of disease; correct?
A. That's what is stated.
Q. And then it states certain benefits or rationales
and problems with
doing that; correct?
A. That is so stated.
Q. Now, that option dealt with looking at basic
research as we've
defined it; correct, sir?
A. I'm not sure. I don't -- I don't think I understand
your question.
Q. Okay. Not smoking and health, but simply basic
research, looking at
the diseases as opposed to looking at smoking and health itself, that's
what I'm referring to. You understand that dichotomy?
A. No, sir, and I -- what you're asking me is inconsistent.
Basic
research doesn't look at the disease process, but rather the underlying
alteration of the norm that predisposes to disease.
Q. It doesn't look at causative agents; does it?
A. Does not look at causative agents, except as
they relate to the
fundamental cellular process.
Q. So it looks at the cellular process, and that's
what option A was
being directed to; correct, sir?
A. I don't understand your question. I think it
is -- it says "Aim the
program at contributing to the search for causes of disease, especially
those diseases alleged to be caused by smoking."
Q. Right.
A. Well, you could aim the program in one of several
ways, you could --
you could go specifically to chemical research, which is what Dr. Wakeham
wanted to do, or you could go to disease itself and study it
epidemiologically, or you could go to the fundamental research which
would
lead you to understand -- better understand the nature of the -- of
the
disease process.
Q. And that's --
He's referring to the latter here, if you go on
to the next page --
A. I'm not sure he is.
Q. Well, why don't you go to the next page and take
a look, because
he's comparing what the CTR might do versus the national health research,
which is looking at cancer generally. Do you see that?
A. You'll have to cite it for me, please, sir.
Q. Sure. "Problem 1. In a total national health
research of 1,000
million dollars," which is a billion dollars, "what impact will our
contribution have? Is it even worth PR value?" Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. Okay. So he's referring to that basic research;
is he not, sir? If
you know.
A. I don't know that.
Q. Okay. Option B, can you look at option B, the
second option.
A. Yes, sir.
*6 Q. Here he's saying to "Use the CTR program as
a means for
establishing -- of establishing expert scientific witnesses who will
testify on behalf of the industry in legislative halls, in litigations,
at
scientific meetings, and before the press and public;" correct?
A. That's what it states.
Q. And that's what CTR had been doing up to that
point; hadn't it?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't think so?
A. No, sir.
Q. Has your --
Did you investigate that to determine one way or
the other?
A. I didn't investigate it specifically, but I'm
aware of the
activities of CTR.
Q. Sir, did you investigate the activities of the
CTR between 1954 and
1970 to determine that?
A. I am aware of the activities. I didn't -- I didn't
go into any
particular investigation.
Q. Okay. Can you see what Dr. Wakeham said back
in 1970 about what that
program had done?
A. I see what you have read to me, yes.
Q. "If this objective is the purpose of CTR, then
a very limited,
select grant program should be adequate to do the job. There would
be
little need for research contracts or an extensive staff in headquarters.
One might also question how long it would take for the witnesses to
acquire
the 'taint' of industry money.
"I cannot judge the litigative value of this approach,
but I am
impressed by the legislative testimony we are able to muster at
Congressional hearings. On the other hand, my contacts with scientists
outside the Industry do not reveal an extensive awareness of, or
appreciation for, the CTR program. It would be interesting to try to
measure such awareness by the public, the medical profession, or by
scientists at large. If after 16 years" --
And he's referring to the time the CTR was formed;
correct, sir?
A. I would judge that, yes.
Q. Okay. "If after 16 years and 20 million dollars
such a study comes
up with a blank, as I think it would, then we can only conclude that
CTR as
present -- presently organized and operated is not convincing the public
that we are objectively seeking the 'truth' or 'establishing good faith
in
the scientific community."' Now did I read that correctly?
A. You read it correctly. It's Dr. Wakeham's opinion.
Q. And Dr. Wakeham was involved through Philip Morris
with the CTR back
at that time; correct?
A. As I understand it, yes.
Q. And Mr. Cullman was heavily involved with the
CTR back at that time;
correct?
A. As I understand it, yes.
Q. And in his conclusion Dr. Wakeham suggests that
"It would seem
appropriate to explore during the next year or two how CTR might be
serving
the needs of the cigarette industry;" correct?
A. That is what is written.
Q. And it goes on to say, "The disparity of opinion
on this subject
within the Industry indicates that the answer to the question is not
obvious. If we (members of the Industry) cannot convince ourselves
of a
definite answer to the question 'how,' then we might very well decide
it is
wasted effort. If so, CTR should be terminated." Correct?
*7 A. That is what Dr. Wakeham wrote.
Q. Now Dr. Wakeham sent this memorandum not only
to the president of
the company, but he also sent it to Mr. Millhiser, who was the vice
chairman of the board at that time. Are you aware of that, sir?
A. I'm not aware of that, but I accept that.
Q. Okay. And are you aware that Mr. Goldsmith, the
next member -- or
carbon-copy recipient of this, was a senior executive who was to become
president of Philip Morris?
A. I accept that.
Q. And Mr. Smith, who's listed, was the general
counsel. Do you recall
that?
A. No, sir. But I accept that.
Q. And Mr. Hugh Cullman was a senior vice-president.
Are you aware of
that?
A. I accept that.
Q. And Mr. Bowling was a senior vice-president and
also on the board of
directors of Philip Morris. Will you accept that?
A. I know Mr. Bowling.
Q. You do. So you know that he was a senior vice-president
and on the
board of directors; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dr. Fagan was a senior scientist; correct?
A. I do not know Dr. Fagan.
Q. And you know that Dr. Osdene was a senior scientist;
do you not?
A. I've been made aware of that, yes.
Q. Now from 1970 forward CTR continued to be controlled
at its highest
levels by the lawyers; didn't it?
A. No, sir. At no time was it controlled by the
lawyers.
Q. Well they didn't select their projects against
any scientific
criteria; did they?
A. All of the projects selected by the Scientific
Advisory Board of The
Council for Tobacco Research were selected on scientific merit.
Q. Were they selected against specific scientific
goals?
A. The specific goals of research projects identified
for funding by
the Scientific Advisory Board were quite simple: first, merit; second,
innovation; third, innovative approaches to research; and fourth, relevance
to fundamental disease processes, particularly those associated with
smoking and health.
Q. May I have that last one, sir? I'm sorry, the
last one you just gave
us.
A. Relevance to basic disease processes, particularly
those diseases
associated with smoking and health.
Q. Okay. So they weren't selected for purposes such
as public
relations, political positions and positions for litigation.
A. No, sir. Never.
Q. Never.
Can you direct your attention, sir, to Exhibit 10177,
which is in
volume one.
A. I have it.
Q. This is a confidential memorandum from Mr. C.
H. Judge from A. W.
Spears; correct?
A. It so states, yes.
Q. Dated June 24th, 1974; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now Dr. Spears, you said yesterday -- I think
you said -- was a very
able scientist.
A. Yes.
Q. Was that your words?
A. Yes.
Q. Truthful man?
A. Yes.
Q. Honorable man?
A. Yes.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 10177.
MR. WEBER: No objection to this, Your Honor. But
we don't know yet
whether the witness has ever seen it for foundation purposes.
MR. CIRESI: It's a Lorillard document produced from
their files.
*8 THE COURT: All right. The court will receive
10177.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now you know Dr. Spears; don't you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. He's a Ph.D.; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. He's a chemist.
A. Yes.
Q. And he's the present CEO of Lorillard; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you know if he testified in Congress in 1994?
A. I think he did, yes.
Q. Did he testify in Congress a few weeks ago?
A. I don't know. I think he did.
Q. Now we see here that this is a confidential memo
to Mr. Judge;
correct?
A. So states, yes.
Q. And Mr. Judge at that time was the CEO of Lorillard;
correct?
A. I accept that.
Q. And he had been the head of the CTR; correct?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Do you know if he served on the board of directors
of the CTR?
A. I think he did.
Q. And Dr. Spears has served on the board of CTR;
correct?
A. He does, yes.
Q. He does today; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So you know him quite well; don't you?
A. I know him in -- in the business context. Our
board meets twice a
year for an hour each time.
Q. And you've discussed whether cigarette smoking
causes diseases with
him; haven't you?
A. Not specifically, no.
Q. You've never had those discussions with Dr. Spears
in the 11 years
that you've been with the CTR?
A. We've never had that specific conversation.
Q. Never.
Have you ever had that specific conversation with
any members of the
board of CTR in the 11 years you served in that position?
A. We've had numerous conversations dealing with
fundamental causes of
cancer, particularly lung cancer, but we've never addressed the specific
issue of cigarette etiology.
Q. So you -- you've never specifically discussed
with any member of the
board of CTR whether smoking causes cancer; correct?
A. Well we've discussed the subject, Mr. Ciresi,
but I -- you asked me
a specific question, had I discussed with Dr. Spears or with other
members
of the board the specific issue of cigarettes causing lung cancer.
No, we
haven't -- I haven't addressed that topic, simply because it hasn't
come
up. We've been addressing much more fundamental scientific problems.
Q. In 11 years it's never come up in the organization
funded by the
industry with any member of the board; correct?
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, asked and answered.
THE COURT: You may answer that.
A. The subject -- the subject of lung cancer obviously
is of
significant interest to our sponsors and to the CTR and the Scientific
Advisory Board, and yes, we have discussed the broad, general subject,
but
as far as the specific question that you asked me, no, we haven't had
a
specific conversation to that effect.
Q. That's what I asked you. That specific subject
matter, smoking
causing cancer, you've never had a specific discussion with any member
of
the board in 11 years; correct?
MR. WEBER: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may answer that.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I've answered it three
times.
*9 A. The answer is no, we -- we haven't --
Q. Thank you.
A. -- addressed that specific point.
Q. Thank you.
Now in this memorandum Dr. Spears says, "Before
attempting to discuss
CTR, a brief review of the organizations contributing to research into
tobacco and health seems to be appropriate." Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And he talks about "Harvard Project;" is that
right?
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor. Could we first
determine whether the
witness has ever seen this document before? There's no foundation laid.
THE COURT: Okay. I think you should inquire.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. This was one of the documents that was provided
to your counsel to
be used in your testimony. You're aware of that, sir?
A. I'm aware of that.
Q. Okay. And you've seen it; haven't you?
A. I have seen this.
Q. Thank you.
And in this memo Dr. Spears says, "Before attempting
to discuss CTR, a
brief review of the organizations contributing to research into tobacco
and
health seems to be appropriate." Correct?
A. That is what he states, yes.
Q. And then he talks about various research that's
being done by
various organizations; correct?
A. I see that.
Q. Including down, under seven, The Tobacco Research
Council, which is
over in the United Kingdom; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And we've seen memoranda from them --
A. Yes.
Q. -- during the course of your testimony; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And we've seen in those memoranda what members
of the industry have
said about CTR; haven't we?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you direct your attention over to page
three, and I want to
direct your attention down to the last paragraph.
"Historically, the joint industry funded smoking
and health research
programs have not been selected against specific scientific goals,
but
rather for various purposes such as public relations, political relations,
position for litigation, et cetera." Do you see that, sir?
A. I see that.
Q. And that is Dr. Spears saying that; correct?
A. I judge that to be; it's part of his memorandum.
Q. And you said, I believe -- and let me know if
I miswrote this --
that "No, sir, never" have the programs been directed to those
purposes;
didn't you?
A. I did. And I would call your attention to the
fact that Dr. Spears
is speaking here about the joint industry funded projects, not CTR.
Q. Sir, who funds CTR?
A. The industry. But --
Q. And do they jointly fund it based upon their
percentage of the
market for the preceding year?
A. Yes.
Q. He goes on to state, does he not, "Thus, it seems
obvious that
reviews of such programs for scientific relevance and merit in the
smoking
and health field are not likely to produce high ratings. In general,
these
programs have provided some buffer to public and political attack of
the
industry, as well as background for litigious strategy. However, the
public
and political attitudes toward smoking has seriously decayed with respect
to the tobacco industry, and scientific and political attack has become
intense, with efforts at forced product modification underway. Thus,
we see
the litigation threat of much more importance than that of legislation
--
legislative and public acceptance of cigarette smoking. This suggests
that
goals should be defined more on the basis of scientific aspects, public
relations and the programs leading to such goals coordinated more by
business on scientific management." Do you see that?
*10 A. I do. You --
Q. And he's talking about in this program -- or
in this memorandum the
CTR and how to reorganize it; isn't he, sir?
A. Mr. Ciresi, I call your attention to the fact
that you misread the
sentence that reads, "Thus, we see the litigation threat of much lesser
importance," not "more importance."
Q. Did I say "more?"
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Oh. Let me re -- restate that. "Thus, we see
the litigation threat
of much lesser importance than that of the legislative and public
acceptance of cigarette smoking. This suggests that goals should be
defined
more on the basis of scientific aspects, public relations and the programs
leading to such goals coordinated more by business on scientific
management."
Did I read it correctly now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And before that time CTR and the industry was
more concerned with
litigation; weren't they, sir?
A. Industry was clearly concerned about it. CTR
was concerned with
science, and this in fact is a plea on the part of Dr. Spears for a
more
business-like approach to the scientific aspects of research.
Q. Yes. What he's saying is that now, with CTR,
we should redirect and
refocus it away from litigation and PR and more toward scientific and
public relations because that's where the attack is coming from; isn't
that
right, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't agree with that.
A. No, I do not, because he doesn't mention CTR
in this paragraph at
all.
Q. The whole --
A. And I would call your attention, Mr. Ciresi,
to the fact that Dr.
Spears is talking about a wide variety of research projects, they are
listed one through 13, and they are outside of CTR. In item 14 he talks
about CTR research which deals with epidemiology, bioassay development,
genetics, primarily aimed at tumorigenesis -- the beginning of tumors
--
and chronic pulmonary disease, but some activity in cardiovascular
disease
and smoking motivation.
Q. Sir --
A. He defines the CTR program --
Q. Yes.
A. -- and he is addressing the question of the other
programs. He
mentioned -- he does not mention CTR at all in this paragraph in question.
Q. Did the --
A. And I interpret this as a plea for more support
of scientific
research.
Q. Did the Committee of Counsel run the Harvard
program?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Do you know what the Committee of Counsel was?
A. Not really.
Q. Can you go on to the next page. "We see no way
to coordinate without
an organization and responsibility to coordinate.
"The writer" --
And the writer is Dr. Spears; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. -- "believes that only two mechanisms exist for
this coordination: a
working committee of industry representatives, and appointment of one
individual for that purpose, with overall program and fiscal
responsibility.
"In the past, and currently, the Committee approach
is in effect being
used, paren, Committee of Council, close paren. However, representatives
of
the Committee generally -- generally lack the background to bring about
scientific coordination and the time to bring about management
coordination."
*11 Do you see that, sir?
A. I see that.
Q. And he was talking about the Committee of Counsel
which controlled
the CTR and TI and others; wasn't he?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Then --
A. They --
Q. -- can you direct your attention, then --
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, the witness was cut off again.
THE COURT: Allow the witness to complete his answer.
Q. You said "No, sir;" didn't you?
A. I said "No, sir."
THE COURT: Is your answer complete?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I think there's a misprint
here. I think
Committee of Council is misspelled, I think it's Counsel, C-o-u-n-s-e-l,
meaning a committee of attorneys. But I don't know that. But there
was
never any Committee of Counsel for tobacco research other than its
own
Executive Committee that we've -- its own board of directors that we've
talked about previously.
Q. Well, let's go take a look at Exhibit 10165,
sir.
A. I have it.
Q. This is a memo dated 4/21/78, it's already in
evidence, "Scientific
Research Liaison Committee." This is by Mr. Judge, who was the president
of
CTR -- excuse me, president of Lorillard.
And he was on the board of directors of CTR from
'74 to 1984; correct,
sir?
A. I accept that.
Q. Okay. And this is another document that you've
reviewed; correct?
A. No, sir, I have not seen this document.
Q. Well, this was presented and given notice to
be used. Do you
understand that?
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor. The implication
is that there's some
obligation to show the witness all the documents that Mr. Ciresi lists.
THE COURT: It's an appropriate implication. That's
why we have notice,
counsel.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Do you know if this was noticed, sir? "Yes" or
"no."
A. I -- I don't know.
Q. Okay. Now let me direct your attention to --
Well let me ask you to assume this, that this is
written by Mr. Judge
and he was on the CTR board.
A. I -- I don't see any signature to this. I --
Q. Sir --
A. I can't accept it was written by Mr. Judge.
Q. Well --
A. It may have been. I don't deny that it could
have been, but --
Q. Can you accept it if it was represented by the
defendants,
specifically Mr. Spears, that it came from his files? Can you accept
that,
sir?
A. I don't know that. I accept what you tell me,
Mr. Ciresi.
Q. Thank you.
Now, in this memorandum Mr. Judge states, "We have
again 'abdicated'
the scientific research directional management of the Industry to the
'Lawyers' with virtually no involvement on the part of scientists or
business management side of the business." Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. And do you see down in the next paragraph, "Lorillard's
management
is opposed to the total industry future being in the hands of the Committee
of Counsel." Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And now it's spelled the way you said it should
have been spelled in
Spears' memo; isn't it? It's s-e-l. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you knew about a Committee of Counsel; didn't
you?
*12 A. Well I only have a passing --
I've never had any dealings with a Committee of
Counsel. I don't know
that it even functions at this time. But I know that the lawyers for
the
sponsor companies do communicate, and I think the proper terminology
is
"Committee of Counsel."
Q. Did Mr. Spears ever tell you, in the 11 years
you've been on the
board, that he and Judge had had a conversation regarding the fact
that the
industry had abdicated its scientific research to the Committee of
Counsel?
A. No, sir.
Q. Never had any discussion regarding that; is that
right, sir?
A. I've had many discussions with Dr. Spears, but
I've not had a
discussion of that point.
Q. Any discussion about the fact the lawyers were
controlling research?
A. No, sir.
Q. Never had that conversation.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you have that conversation with any members
of the board of
directors of CTR?
A. It was never necessary, Mr. Ciresi.
Q. Now sir, do you know that special projects were
established at CTR
in the sixties?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And those special projects were controlled by
the lawyers?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know what the special projects were for?
A. Special projects were scientific research projects
which were
initiated at the instigation of the sponsor companies by independent
scientists. CTR did not initiate those projects and they were not projects
of the Scientific Advisory Board, but CTR was used as the conduit for
funding the special projects that the sponsor companies wanted done.
Q. Were there lawyer special projects and CTR special
projects?
A. I think counsel was probably involved in the
company's decision
about whether to support a given project or not, but the funding came
from
the sponsor companies.
Q. I know where the funding came from, sir, but
the question is this:
Were there lawyer special projects?
A. No, sir, not by my definition. I'm -- I'm certain
that counsel
participated in the company's decisions about which research they would
sponsor, but they were company-sponsored projects.
Q. So they were company-sponsored projects implemented
through the
lawyers; is that right?
A. No, sir, I didn't say that. I don't know that.
Q. So you don't know one way or the other; correct?
A. I --
It is my understanding that they were company-sponsored
projects.
Q. But sir, you testified that you don't guess,
you only know or I
don't know. Isn't that what you said?
A. I know that they were company-sponsored projects.
Q. And do you know if acting on behalf of the companies
in sponsoring
those projects were the lawyers? Do you know that?
A. I don't know that. I assume that the lawyers
for the company may
have participated in decisions.
Q. Well you've heard that the lawyers made those
decisions; haven't
you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 10197,
please.
A. I have that.
Q. This is another document that was -- notice was
provided to you,
sir. Did you review this?
*13 A. I think I have seen this in the distant past,
but I'm not sure.
Q. All right.
A. I'm not certain of the origin of the document.
Q. By the way, Dr. Glenn, let me ask you this: We've
been given notice
of some 400 documents that will be used with you in your direct testimony
by counsel. Have you reviewed all those documents?
A. No, sir. I've been very busy administering a
research program and
dealing with day-to-day operations, and the review of documents that
are 40
and 50 years old really hasn't been at the top of my list.
Q. Hmm. Did the lawyers show you any of the 400
documents that they
gave us notice that they might use with you?
A. Oh, yes.
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's an improper
question.
THE COURT: Gentlemen, will you approach the bench,
please.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now doctor, I know you're busy doing what you
do, but do you know
how many of the documents that you did review?
A. I can't tell you the number, Mr. Ciresi, but
many.
Q. Okay. That's over the last few days?
A. No, no, extending back over several months.
Q. Now --
A. I'm sure that I've forgotten some of them that
I have reviewed, as
you might expect.
Q. Very natural, sir. I understand that.
Now, this is one of the documents you reviewed?
A. I think so. As I read through it, I think I've
seen this.
Q. Okay. Now these are Mr. Judge's notes. Are you
aware of that, sir?
A. No, sir. It -- it is not dated and it is not
signed, and I really
could not determine the origin.
Q. It's been -- it's been represented to us by the
defendants that
that's whose notes they are. Were you told that?
A. No, sir.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 10197.
MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 10197.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now this relates to a CTR meeting; correct?
A. I -- I interpret that to mean it is a meeting
about CTR, because
these are not only representatives from CTR, but also outside people.
Q. Well, Mr. Judge was on the CTR board of directors
from 1974 to 1984;
correct, sir?
A. I accept that.
Q. Okay. Mr. Yeaman, after he retired from Brown
& Williamson as their
lawyer, went and took a position of chairman of CTR; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Dr. Gardner was a CTR scientific director;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he succeed Dr. Little?
A. Yes.
Q. So we know it's some time after 1971; correct?
A. I would accept that.
Q. And we know that, as you just testified, that
Mr. Judge was on the
board from 74 to '84 of CTR; correct?
A. I accept that.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Hockett was from CTR; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you know who Mr. Stevens is?
A. I think so.
Q. Okay. And who was he, sir?
A. If this is Mr. Arthur Stevens, he is vice-president
of Lorillard.
Q. General counsel; correct?
A. General counsel, yes.
Q. Now, can you direct your attention down to the
bottom portion. Do
you see the notation next to the name "Yeaman?"
*14 A. Yes.
Q. "Difficulty in justifying budget increase." Well
I shouldn't say
that. It says i-n-c-r. Would you take that to mean "increase," sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. "Difficulty in justifying budget increase
- 'We're trying to
prove a negative."' Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. That means that they were trying to prove that
smoking didn't cause
lung cancer; doesn't it?
A. I'm not sure of that.
Q. But you -- you did see that reference in a previous
memo we just
looked at about proving the negative; didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it goes on to say as follows: "'CTR
is the best & cheapest
insurance the tobacco industry can buy and without it, the Industry
would
have to invent CTR or would be dead."' See that?
A. I do.
Q. Now do you recall now seeing this memo?
A. Yes. I -- as I told you, I think I've seen --
I think it was
sometime back.
Q. Did you go and ask any of these gentlemen, if
they're still around,
what was meant by that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ask anybody to ask any of those gentlemen?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know if the industry felt that CTR was
the best and cheapest
insurance it could buy in order to keep itself from being dead?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Do you know if the industry was involved in a
united front in
funding the CTR to make sure they would have the cheapest industry
so they
wouldn't be dead?
A. I don't understand your question.
Q. Did they combine together and work in combination
to fund CTR?
A. Yes, and -- and they have from the very beginning.
Q. As a concert of activity; correct?
A. As a concert of activity?
Q. Yes.
A. Well I don't understand the use of the term.
CTR has always been
sponsored by the tobacco industry.
Q. They worked in concert to fund it; correct?
A. Well "concert," they were joint sponsors of CTR.
Q. Okay. And that means they worked in concert;
correct?
A. Well, yes, that's fine.
Q. Now did other lawyers who retired from their
companies become the
head of CTR?
A. I'm not sure of the background of each of the
chairmen of CTR. There
were a number of them. They -- they rotated at regular intervals in
the
early days.
Q. They revolved through; didn't they?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. They revolved through, didn't they, the lawyers?
A. I wouldn't say they revolved, because their tenure
would be two or
three years, as I recall.
Q. Cy Hetsko from American, he was a director of
CTR; wasn't he?
A. Who, sir?
Q. Hetsko.
A. Hetsko was a director of CTR but not a chairman.
You asked me about
chairmen, I think.
Q. And some of the lawyers were not only chairmen
of CTR, they were
also on the board of directors of CTR; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Ramm was the president of CTR; wasn't he?
A. I've forgotten the terminology in those early
days. I think that's
probably correct.
Q. And he was the fellow who was mentioned in Judge's
memo that we just
looked at who was controlling CTR; wasn't he?
*15 A. I'm sorry, I --
Can you give me a reference there?
Q. Sure. I believe it's Exhibit 10165, sir. Do you
see here where Mr.
Judge, in paragraph number two, wherein he's talking about the industry's
future being in the hands of the Committee of Counsel, he says, "it's
reminiscent of the late '60s when Ramm's group ran TI, CTR and everything
else involved with Industry's public posture." Do you see that?
A. I see it as it's written. I don't accept the
validity of that.
Q. Well this was written, sir -- and I represent
to you -- by Mr.
Judge. Do you understand that?
A. You have told me that, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And it was written --
Would you accept this? It was written at a time
when he didn't think it
was going to be discovered in litigation.
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's argumentative
and improper.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Do you know if he intended to publish this to
the public?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Do you think he voluntarily sent this out to
the lawyers for the
state of Minnesota?
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Do you know if he voluntarily sent this?
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's argumentative,
and it's
violative of the court's ruling.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Now Mr. Ramm was the former general counsel of
RJR; correct?
A. I -- I believe that to be correct, Mr. Ciresi.
But this is from an
era that I have no personal involvement.
Q. And that's my point, sir. So you don't know whether
this is accurate
or not, what Mr. Judge wrote; correct?
A. I don't know that any of this is accurate. These
are somebody's
notes, that's all I can tell.
Q. Okay. And you do know that Mr. Ramm was the chairman
of CTR from
1971 to 1975, don't you, based on your review of the history?
A. I believe that's true, yes.
Q. Can you direct your attention, sir, to Exhibit
11501.
A. I have that, Mr. Ciresi.
Q. Now, I believe you said the special projects
were started sometime
back in 1965, mid -- mid-'60s; is that fair?
A. I didn't say that, but I think that's correct.
Q. Now Liggett participated at times in the special
projects; didn't
they?
A. I don't know.
Q. Can you direct your attention, then, to Exhibit
11501. Do you see
that this is a Liggett memorandum from -- the initial is F.P.H., and
I'll
represent to you that that's Mr. Haas, the general counsel. Do you
recall
he being the general counsel?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. It's from Mr. Haas to Mr. Harrington, who
was the president of
Liggett; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And it's dated February 2nd, 1971; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it deals with a proposal on research dealing
with immunologic
aspects of cancer; correct?
A. Correct.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 11501.
MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 11501.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now sir, in reviewing the history of CTR, did
you ascertain that one
of the special projects that was funded was at Washington University?
*16 A. Yes, as a matter of fact.
Q. And that's in St. Louis; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And if you look at this memorandum, you'll
see in the first
paragraph that Mr. Haas was referencing a proposed project at Washington
University; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you recall that the special project at Washington
University
dealt with the immunologic health aspects of cancer?
A. I would have to refer to our list of special
projects to confirm
that specifically, but I accept that.
Q. Okay.
A. The special projects were accomplished in some
of the most
distinguished universities and medical centers in the country, of which
Washington University is one.
Q. Thank you, sir.
Now can you direct your attention to the second
paragraph. It's set
forth there that the project would be five -- a five-year project;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And it was going to be 400,000 dollars an annum;
correct?
A. That is so stated.
Q. And Liggett's share would be 32,000 dollars a
year; correct?
A. It so states.
Q. And Mr. Haas here references the fact that that
would be what
Liggett's contribution is if all the other companies participated;
correct?
A. It so states.
Q. And he also states that Reynolds, Brown &
Williamson, Philip Morris
and Lorillard had already approved it; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And he says that Mr. Hardy expects the approval
of American in the
near future; correct?
A. I read that, yes.
Q. And do you know who Mr. Hardy was?
A. Mr. Hardy was one of the attorneys for American
Tobacco.
Q. An outside lawyer; correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. Is that Shook, Hardy & Bacon?
A. I believe so.
Q. Long-time lawyers for the tobacco industry?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Okay. They're representing some of the defendants
in this case?
A. I think so.
Q. And Mr. Hardy expected the approval of American
in the near future;
correct?
A. It so states.
Q. Now can you look at the next paragraph, sir,
where Mr. Haas reports
as follows: "It seems to me that one of the principal reasons we resigned
from CTR is that it was shooting with a blunderbuss instead of a rifle.
My
analysis of this project and discussions with Dave Hardy indicate that
the
project is designed to attack the disease itself as the project is
in no
way to be correlated with the smoking habits of the persons concerned."
Do you see that?
A. I read that, yes.
Q. And you understand that to mean that this study
would not look at
smoking at all; correct?
A. I -- it says "in no way correlated with the smoking
habits of
persons concerned."
Q. Okay. And can you turn to the last page, then,
of this document,
sir, where Mr. Haas reports the following: "I believe that this project
warrants our serious consideration. We have contributed for seven years
to"
--
Is that AMA?
A. I believe it to be.
Q. -- "AMA-ERF at the rate of 156,000 dollars a
year and unhappily very
little has inured to our benefit. I repeat that this seems to be shooting
with a rifle and warrants our serious consideration. I do not see how
it
could ricochet to our detriment since the smoking habit has no part
in the
study and, as I said at the outset, the project is not involved in
finding
causation." Do you see that, sir?
*17 A. I see that.
Q. Now, the special projects and other research
at CTR were in fact
directed so that they did not ricochet to the detriment of the industry;
correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. Not at all.
A. No, sir.
Q. And projects were not selected so that they weren't
involved in
finding causation; is that right?
A. No, sir, that's not correct. The science supported
by CTR under the
guidance of the Scientific Advisory Board was directed toward merit
of the
project and toward better understanding of fundamental disease processes,
as I've explained previously.
Q. Well sir, over 80 percent, over 80 percent of
the CTR grant
recipients have indicated in surveys that none of their research, current
or past, examined the health effects of smoking; isn't that right?
A. No, sir, that's incorrect. The figures you're
citing are from a very
superficial survey of former grantees done by an epidemiologist, and
the
figures are incorrect. In the first place, the response from the grantees
was scanty, and to draw the inference that you're drawing is really
extrapolating inadvisedly.
Q. Well --
A. Furthermore, the question that was asked was
-- in -- in that survey
was: "Does your research relate directly to smoking?" And the -- and
the
honest answer on the part of the investigators would have to be no,
because
they were working on fundamental disease processes.
Q. Right. They weren't working on smoking; correct,
sir?
A. Yes, we were, because -- they were, because understanding
fundamental disease process is really going to be the key to understand
the
diseases that are associated with smoking.
Q. "Does your research relate directly to smoking?
And the honest
answer on the part of the investigators would have had to be no." Is
that
what you said?
A. Yes.
Q. Now in that survey over 80 percent of the respondents
said that;
correct?
A. In that survey, which is subject to a great deal
of criticism.
Q. Well --
A. And I think you've taken my statement out of
context. I explained
why they would say no.
Q. Sir, when that survey was conducted, it went
out to the members of
the Scientific Advisory Board of the CTR; correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. And some of those members refused to respond;
correct?
A. I don't know who responded and who did not.
Q. Well this survey took place during the time that
you were with the
CTR; didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And a letter went out from the CTR to those Scientific
Advisory
Board members; didn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. And you urged the people not to cooperate; didn't
you?
A. I don't believe I used those -- those terms,
but I pointed out to
them that this was a very superficial sort of survey.
Q. Well, whether you used exactly those words, that
was the import;
correct?
A. No, sir. I'm sure that the words speak for themselves.
I don't have
a copy of the letter at hand.
Q. Sir, in 1993, would it be fair to state that
approximately 10 of the
296 studies in the CTR index had anything to do with tobacco?
*18 A. That would be inaccurate, because we have
focused on basic
research that leads to better understanding of the diseases that are
associated with smoking, so the 10 projects in which tobacco is mentioned
just happened to be obvious.
Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 4700,
which is your
testimony in front of the Subcommittee of the Health and the Environment.
A. Do I have that?
Q. Yes. It is in volume number one.
THE REPORTER: Is that 4700, Mr. Ciresi?
MR. CIRESI: 4700.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, if I -- if I could ask, we
don't have -- none of
the defendants have that on their designation list.
MR. CIRESI: Should be on.
THE COURT: Why don't we take a short recess at this
time and make sure
that defendants have that.
MR. WEBER: Thank you.
(Recess taken.)
THE CLERK: All rise. Court is again in session.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
THE CLERK: Please be seated.
THE COURT: Counsel.
MR. WEBER: I can't remember where we were right
now, Your Honor, on the
Exhibit 4700 issue.
MR. CIRESI: We're right there.
MR. WEBER: If we're there, then -- and if the court
would like to hear
from me, I'm prepared to do that.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WEBER: Okay. I think that what we figured out
over the break is
that 4700 was not predesignated for Dr. Glenn's testimony. What was
predesignated is marked as 3419. They are two separate documents. One
of
them is about a 400- some-page transcript of hearings before a House
committee. That's the one that is not designated, 4700. The one that
was
designated is 3419, which is the portion of that hearing that includes
Dr.
Glenn's testimony.
So with respect to 4700, I would object because
it's filled with
hearsay and other statements and other testimony, et cetera, so I would
object to that one. Plus it wasn't predesignated.
With respect to 3419 --
Do you want me to go ahead and deal with that?
MR. CIRESI: May I respond, Your Honor?
THE COURT: All right, go ahead.
MR. CIRESI: We may not have to introduce the exhibit.
We provided 4700
because it is the entire proceeding in the event counsel would suggest
that
3419 may have been taken out of context, so we provided 4700 so the
doctor
would have the entire proceeding there. We're going to go to that portion
of the proceeding which was his testimony, which is 3419. Depending
upon
his testimony here in court, we may not enter the exhibit at all. So
I
think we can deal with it as we proceed with the questions. But 3419,
which
was designated, includes a portion of 4700, but he now has it all in
the
event he wanted to look at somebody else's testimony.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't we go ahead, then,
see --
As we go along, you can make your objection, if
necessary, if it's
going to be actually introduced.
MR. WEBER: So they'll offer -- the motion to introduce
Exhibit 4700 is
withdrawn then?
MR. CIRESI: I never offered 4700, I simply directed
his attention to
4700.
THE COURT: Okay.
*19 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now doctor, again let me direct your attention
to Exhibit 4700. Do
you recall giving testimony in 1994 to the Subcommittee on Health and
the
Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when we recessed here, did you go out and
reread your testimony?
A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't look at it at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nobody pointed it out to you.
A. No, sir.
Q. Now doctor, would you agree that the CTR submits
annual reports?
A. Yes.
Q. And in 1993, of the 296 studies in your index
which were funded for
about 19 and a half million dollars in grants, only 10, or about 10
of the
projects had anything to do with tobacco. You don't dispute that; do
you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. Would you take a look at page 368
of the testimony that
you gave under oath in Congress.
A. Page 368.
Q. Three six eight.
Do you have 368?
A. I -- I do now, yes.
Q. All right. You'll see at the top Representative
-- or Congressman
Synar is asking a question.
A. Yes.
Q. All right. I want to direct your attention to
the second question.
Did you give the following answers to the following questions under
oath at
that time:
"CONGRESSMAN SYNAR: Are you familiar with your counsel
report of 1993?
"MR. GLENN: I am.
"MR. SYNAR: Of the 296 studies in your index, wheere
you funded about
19.5 million in grants, as I see from the index, only 10, or about
10 of
the projects have anything to do with tobacco. Do you dispute that?
"MR. GLENN: No, sir."
Did you give those answers to those questions under
oath in Congress in
1994?
A. I did. But you're taking that out of context,
Mr. Ciresi.
Q. Excuse me, sir.
A. I had already explained to the congressional
subcommittee the nature
of basic biomedical research and how it does relate. Mr. Synar was
talking
about specific tobacco-related projects.
Q. Right. And that's what I am talking about, tobacco-related
projects.
And that's what those questions related to; correct, sir?
A. You make me feel inadequate. I thought I explained
that the research
that we've supported and continue to support is fundamental, and it
-- it's
clearly related to tobacco.
Q. Sir, you gave those answers to those questions
under oath in front
of Congress; correct?
A. I did.
Q. Thank you.
A. And --
Q. Thank you.
A. -- after having given a prior explanation. And
I think if you refer
back to my opening statements to the congressional subcommittee, you'll
find all of that is explained.
Q. Sir, I'm only talking about what Mr. Synar, Congressman
Synar was
talking about, and that's projects which have anything to do with tobacco.
And he asked whether you disputed that and you said no, sir. I'm not
talking about fundamental, basic research into cancer, I'm talking
about
tobacco. Do you understand that?
A. I hear you, yes, sir.
*20 Q. Thank you.
Now you're aware that the industry attempted to
avoid research which
might indict cigarettes; are you not?
A. No, sir.
Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 11624.
A. Can I ask if we're finished with 4700?
Q. I am, sir.
MR. WEBER: I'm sorry, Mr. Ciresi, can I get the
number again.
MR. CIRESI: 11624.
A. I have that.
Q. And that is a memorandum to Mr. Goldsmith from
Mr. Seligman of
Philip Morris?
A. Correct.
Q. And you know that Mr. Goldsmith was the senior
vice-president,
Philip Morris?
A. I believe so.
Q. He was on their board of directors; correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. And Mr. Seligman was vice-president, research
and development?
A. I think that's correct.
Q. Okay. And this memo to Mr. Goldsmith from Mr.
Seligman attaches a
memo from Dr. Osdene; correct?
A. Yes.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 11624.
MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 11264 -- 624, excuse
me, 11624.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now sir, we see the memorandum. It's dated November
30th, 1977;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And it's from Mr. Seligman to Mr. Goldsmith and
the subject is
"Council for Tobacco Research Program." Correct?
A. It so states.
Q. And Mr. Seligman is reporting here that on November
22nd Mr. Osdene
represented Philip Morris at a CTR program review session; correct?
A. That is what it states, yes.
Q. And that in addition to his trip report, Mr.
Osdene wrote a memo to
Mr. Seligman commenting about what he word -- heard; correct?
A. It appears so.
Q. And he attached a copy of that personal and confidential
memo;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Seligman wanted to bring this to the
attention of Mr.
Goldsmith because Mr. Goldsmith was a member of the Executive Committee
of
the CTR; correct?
A. That is what is -- what is stated here.
Q. And Mr. Osdene was disturbed about the trends
that were developing
in the CTR program; correct?
A. It appears so.
Q. And because of the nature of Mr. Osdene's memorandum
-- or Dr.
Osdene's memorandum, Mr. Seligman gave it a very limited distribution;
correct?
A. He so states, yes.
Q. Can you direct your attention, then, to the next
page, which is the
attached memorandum of Dr. Osdene to Dr. Seligman dated November 29th,
1977, and marked "PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL" in the upper left-hand
corner.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Subject, "Some Comments about the CTR Program."
"I was amazed at the trend that the contract work
is taking. For
openers Dr. Donald H. Ford, a new staff member, makes the following
quotes:
"'Opiates and nicotine may be similar in action.'
"'We accept the fact that nicotine is habituating.'
"'There is a relationship between nicotine and the
opiates."'
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. Are you familiar with Dr. Ford's work?
A. Yes.
Q. And he was a researcher who had been funded by
the CTR?
*21 A. Ford was a staff member of CTR.
Q. Was his work funded?
A. I don't know whether Dr. Ford had any grants
before he came with the
CTR staff or not. Memory fails me about that. Dr. Ford was a member
of the
CTR scientific staff.
Q. And how long --
A. He was a neuroanatomist by training and a neuropharmacologist,
and
he -- these are apparently concepts which he expressed.
Q. How long was Dr. Ford with the CTR?
A. For probably 15 years, perhaps longer.
Q. Fifteen.
Is he still with the CTR?
A. No. He's retired.
Q. Okay. Now this is about 11 years before the Surgeon
General found
nicotine addictive; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And compared nicotine to cocaine; correct?
A. Opiates. I don't believe cocaine is mentioned
specifically here.
Q. Is -- is cocaine an opiate?
A. Cocaine is a -- the cocaine family is --
When you speak of opiates, you're really talking
about the opium
family.
Q. Well is it part of that family?
A. Well, yes.
Q. Thank you.
Now Dr. Osdene goes on to state, "Dr. Leo Abood"
--
And he was from the University of Rochester; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. He was a consultant for the industry?
A. He was --
Yes, I think so.
Q. He was on the Scientific Advisory Board of the
CTR?
A. Subsequently, yes.
Q. And how long did he serve on that board, sir?
A. Until his death a month ago.
Q. All right. And at this time Dr. Abood, whose
presentation showed a
high degree of competence, has one of his aims a specific antagonist
to
nicotine; correct?
A. That is so written.
Q. And do you know what an antagonist to nicotine
would be?
A. Well it would be a substance which would counteract
the effect of
nicotine.
Q. What effect of nicotine?
A. But I think it's misstated in this memorandum.
What Dr. Abood really
was researching was not an antagonist to nicotine, but a substitute.
Q. Oh, he wanted a substitute for nicotine, not
an antagonist; is that
right?
A. I don't know what he wanted. I'm just -- I'm
just speaking factually
about his research.
Q. Now an antagonist to nicotine, though, would,
you said, negate the
effects of nicotine; correct?
A. I think that's correct, yes.
Q. What are the effects of nicotine?
A. Well it --
Are you sure you want to hear this? Because it's
-- it's a pretty
complex thing. My -- my understanding of it is incomplete.
Q. All right.
A. But I will be happy to share what information
I have, if you like.
Q. So you're not an expert in nicotine.
A. I'm not an expert, no.
Q. All right. Now what would be a clinically acceptable
antagonist to
nicotine? What -- what does that mean, "clinically acceptable?" One
that
could be used by patients?
A. I don't know exactly what you mean by "clinically
acceptable
antagonist."
Q. Well, that's what Dr. Osdene's reported here,
"could well lead to a
clinically acceptable antagonist." Is it your testimony you don't know
what
that means, sir?
*22 A. I'm not sure what they -- what they meant.
Q. Fair enough.
Then he mentions a Dr. Kreisher, if I'm pronouncing
that correctly. Or
is it Kreisher?
A. Kreisher.
Q. Kreisher. And he works in the area of AAH. And
what's AAH?
A. Aero aromatic hydrocarbons.
Q. Aromatic hydrocarbons.
A. Yes.
Q. Part of the benzoid ring hydrocarbons?
A. Yes.
Q. Are they alkanes?
A. I can't tell you that.
Q. Are they carcinogenic?
A. I can't tell you that either.
Q. And Dr. Kreisher's work in the area of aromatic
hydrocarbons starts
out with the proposition that smoking causes lung cancer. Do you see
that?
A. I do.
Q. And Dr. Osdene reports to Dr. Seligman that the
rest of the work
seems to justify this approach. "I am very surprised about the extensive
human clinical data which is now being sought and feel that after four
years of this project nobody has the slightest idea where it is going,
where it is, or what it is trying to prove.
"It is my strong feeling that with the progress
that has been claimed,
we are in the process of digging our own grave."
Now have you conducted any investigation into the
history of CTR to see
what type of progress had been claimed at that point in time with regard
to
this work?
A. I haven't conducted an investigation. I'm aware
of the progressive
nature of the research program at CTR.
Q. Well I'm talking about Dr. Kreisher's work.
A. I'm aware of that.
Q. Okay. Have you investigated to see what facts
led to Dr. Osdene's
statement that "we are in the process of digging our own grave?"
A. This is a memo written by Osdene, who is a chemist,
who may or may
not have understood what was explained to him.
Q. I see. Well, doctor, you're aware, are you not,
that every one of
the manufacturing defendants in their research and development departments,
they were loaded with chemists? You knew that.
A. I don't know that. I accept that.
Q. Chemists are the ones who did the work in pharmacology
and
toxicology; aren't they?
A. No, they don't do work in pharmacology or toxicology.
They are
chemists.
Q. So they don't do any work in --
A chemist does no work in pharmacology or toxicology.
A. No. Ordinarily you would expect that biomedical
research would be
done by a biomedical scientist, not physical scientists.
Q. Who hold chemical degrees?
A. Chemical degree is a physical degree.
Q. Did Dr. Spears conduct any of that type of work?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Now if Dr. Kreisher's work was showing that smoking
causes cancer,
would that be digging the grave of the defendant manufacturers?
A. Dr. Kreisher was not doing the work. Dr. Kreisher
was a member of
the scientific staff.
Q. If the work, sir, was showing that smoking caused
lung cancer, would
that dig the grave of the defendants?
A. This -- this is Dr. -- Mr. Osdene's opinion,
and -- and I accept
what is written here.
Q. Do you believe that if smoking causes lung cancer,
it would dig the
graves of the defendants?
*23 A. Well I think that's hyperbole. I think that's
overstating the
problem. Everyone, even at this stage in 1977, knew the risk factors
of
smoking --
Q. That's not what I asked you.
A. -- in relation to -- to lung cancer.
Q. That's not what I asked you. If the industry
--
Let me put it this way: If the industry stood up
and said, "We admit
smoking causes cancer," do you think that would have an impact?
A. Mr. Ciresi, to go back to the area of causation
-- and we can talk
about this for a long time, --
Q. No, sir --
A. -- if -- if you accept "cause" in the scientific
sense, nobody's
going to get up and say that.
Q. Sir, if --
A. If you say "risk factor," then clearly the industry
has already
acknowledged that and the general public is well aware of it. So this
--
this statement of Osdene's regarding digging our own grave is far from
scientific.
Q. Now maybe you can answer my question. If the
industry --
MR. WEBER: Objection to the commentary again, Your
Honor.
MR. CIRESI: Well --
THE COURT: Just ask your question, counsel.
Q. Sir, please listen to my question.
If the industry stood up like they testify in Congress,
if they lined
up the six CEOs and they all raised their right hand, took the oath,
and
they were asked the question: "Does smoking cause lung cancer?" and
they
all said "Yes," do you think that would have an impact on the public?
"Yes"
or "no," or you don't know.
MR. WEBER: Object to the instruction as to how the
witness should
answer the question, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. Don't instruct the witness.
MR. CIRESI: Okay.
Q. Can you answer that question?
A. I'm certain it would have an impact on the public,
yes.
Q. Thank you.
Now Dr. Osdene goes on to state, "I believe that
the program has set up
-- as set up has the potential of great damage to the industry, and
I
strongly urge that the whole relationship of our company to CTR be
carefully reviewed. I am very much afraid that the direction of the
work
being taken by CTR is totally detrimental to our position, and undermines
the public posture we have taken to outsiders." Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Now, "outsiders" would be the public; correct?
A. I presume, yes.
Q. Smokers; correct?
A. And non-smokers.
Q. Congressmen; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Public health officials; correct?
A. And others.
Q. And the position that the companies had taken
at that time was that
smoking does not cause lung cancer; correct?
A. That is what is implied.
Q. And you know that's the position that the companies
were taking at
that time; correct?
A. No, I -- I can't translate myself back to 1977
and put myself inside
those people's heads.
Q. Well let me ask it this way, sir: You know that
today the companies
take the public position that smoking does not cause lung cancer. You
know
that.
A. We're back to the issue of causation and the
scientific terminology.
If you accept the term "cause" in the lay sense; that is, is it involved
with -- statistically and epidemiologically involved with lung cancer,
then
the answer is of course, yes.
*24 Q. The companies today take the position that
smoking does not
cause lung cancer; correct?
A. Again, we have to define the terminology "cause."
Q. Sir, can you tell me one company who has stood
up and said --
besides Liggett -- one company that has stood up and said, "Smoking
causes
lung cancer?" Name me one.
A. Mr. Ciresi, they're not going to say it causes
it because that
implies a universal cause-and-effect relationship, and that simply
does not
exist.
Q. Sir --
A. If you say tuberculosis is caused by the tubercle
Bacillus and we
can consistently identify the tubercle Bacillus in the diseased tissue,
then that's one-on-one. We know it is -- the tubercle Bacillus is the
cause
of tuberculosis and it is replicated time after time. But not every
smoker
has lung cancer and many people who don't smoke have lung cancer, so
there
are a lot of enigmas, mysteries that still surround the whole issue.
And to
say smoking causes lung cancer without defining the term "cause" puts
you
in serious jeopardy.
Q. Sir, can you name one company who has stood up
and said -- besides
Liggett -- "Smoking causes lung cancer?"
A. No, sir.
Q. Can you --
A. And I doubt they ever would say it in that --
in those terms because
that simply is inaccurate.
Q. Now you mentioned tuberculosis; didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. And you said something about a virus that causes
tuberculosis?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. What -- what did you say?
A. I said the tubercle Bacillus.
Q. The tubercle Bacillus. Is that a parasite?
A. Is that what?
Q. Is that a parasite?
A. No, sir.
Q. What is it?
A. It's a bacterium.
Q. It's a bacterium.
So the tubercle Bacillus causes tuberculosis in
every case; correct?
A. If the patient has tuberculosis, it is caused
by the tubercle
Bacillus universally.
Q. Now what you're using there is the Jacob Henle
and the Robert Koch
postulates; aren't you?
A. Koch's postulates are fulfilled by that equation,
yes.
Q. And that's Henle and Koch postulate; isn't it,
sir? They were two
scientists in the 1800s; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And they came up with postulates for what they
called cause;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And one was that --
And this is based on 19th century knowledge of bacterial
disease;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And they said that a parasite was a cause if
it occurs in every case
of the disease; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. If it occurs in no other disease; correct?
A. I'm not sure of that.
Q. You don't know the Henle Koch postulates; do
you, sir?
A. Yes, sir, I do know Koch's postulates.
Q. All right. That is the second postulate, isn't
it, it occurs in no
other disease?
A. It occurs in no other disease.
Q. That's the second one.
A. Of --
But that does not include the related diseases.
Q. And the third postulate was after being isolated
from the body,
grown in a pure culture and repeatedly passed, it would induce the
disease
again; correct?
*25 A. Yes, sir.
Q. Those were the three Koch's postulates; correct?
A. I have so stipulated.
Q. All right. Now do you believe that the Epstein-Barr
virus causes
infectious mononucleosis?
A. Possibly, yes.
Q. You know it does; don't you, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, you do.
And that was found by Werner Henle, Robert Henle
-- or Jacob Henle's
grandson; correct?
A. I don't know that.
Q. You don't know.
And not one of his grandfather's postulates was
met by the -- by that
virus; isn't that right, sir? Not one.
A. Well that doesn't have anything to do with my
prior statement
relative to the absolute relationship between smoking and lung cancer.
Q. But you just said that the Epstein-Barr virus
causes infectious
mononucleosis; didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And it doesn't occur in every case of infectious
mononucleosis; does
it, sir?
A. That's why I hedged my initial answer to you.
It doesn't occur in
every case.
Q. And smoking doesn't cause in every smoker lung
disease; does it?
A. No. As a matter of fact, only in a small minority.
Q. Now with regard to the Epstein-Barr virus, it
occurred in other
diseases; didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. I don't understand the thrust of your question.
Q. Well I'm seeing whether or not, where you say
that Epstein-Barr
virus causes infectious mononucleosis -- causes -- whether it fits
the
Henle Koch's postulates, and we're finding out that it doesn't fit
the
Henle Koch's postulates; aren't we, sir?
A. Yes. But I was talking about tuberculosis.
Q. Oh. Well, should we talk about typhoid or diphtheria?
A. No. I was talking about tuberculosis.
Q. How about cholera?
A. I was talking about tuberculosis.
Q. Scientists for decades have found cause regardless
of whether the
Henle Koch's postulates are met; haven't they, doctor? If you can answer.
A. Mr. Ciresi, I don't want to argue with you about
this.
Q. I'm not arguing either, sir. I've asked a simple
question.
Scientists for decades --
MR. WEBER: Object to the commentary again, Your
Honor.
MR. CIRESI: Well, Your Honor, he said he didn't
want to argue with me.
THE COURT: All right. You can ask the question.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Scientists for decades have found cause and effect
in the absence of
Henle Koch's postulates; haven't they?
A. In some instances. But I wasn't referring to
scientists and -- and
the Koch's postulates, not "Koch's." I was talking about tuberculosis.
Q. I know you were.
A. That's a --
Q. I know you picked --
A. -- one-on-one equation.
Q. I know you picked tuberculosis, sir. I know that,
the jury knows it,
the court knows it.
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ask a question, counsel.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now, do you know of any other cancer that has
been researched
epidemiologically, toxicologically, in other ways, over the last 40
years
as lung cancer and smoking? Can you name any other disease?
*26 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
Q. Do you know how many studies have been conducted
on lung cancer and
smoking?
A. How many studies?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I can't tell you that. But an infinite number.
Q. And sir, when scientists make judgment on causation,
they don't look
at just the Henle Koch's postulates; do they? They look at other factors;
correct?
A. There are -- there are many factors, obviously.
Q. They look at the experimental approach; don't
they?
A. Correct.
Q. They look at the temporal associations; don't
they?
A. Correct.
Q. They look at consistency of those associations;
don't they?
A. I would think so.
Q. They look at the strength of those associations;
don't they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They look at the coherence of the associations,;
don't they?
A. I imagine.
Q. And then they make a judgment based upon cause
and effect; don't
they?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Surgeon General of the United States
since 1964 has used
those scientific methods in determining that smoking causes a variety
of
diseases; haven't they?
A. True.
Q. Based on reports in the medical literature and
the judgments of
hundreds of scientists in this country and around the world; correct?
A. Many of those scientists were supported by CTR
grants.
Q. Sir, is your answer yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you.
And yet to this day, besides Liggett, not one of
these other
defendants, manufacturing defendants in this case, who pay your salary,
have stood up and said to the American people, "Smoking causes cancer;"
have they?
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's asked and
answered from before.
It's also argumentative.
THE COURT: It's not argumentative. It's been asked
and answered.
Q. Sir, you talked about the resources that the
industry has
contributed to CTR; is that correct?
A. Spoke about what, Mr. Ciresi?
Q. The resources that the industry has contributed
to CTR to conduct
these studies.
A. By "resources," do you mean funding?
Q. Money.
A. Money. Yes.
Q. That's a resource; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. But I -- I thought you were introducing another
document.
Q. Let me --
No. Fair enough.
A. Industry has funded research that has been fostered
by CTR and its
Scientific Advisory Board.
Q. Okay. And the board, then, funnels out this money
to various
institutions around the country; correct?
A. Well I -- it's not quite that simple. There is
intense competition
for grant funding, and it's -- the process of grant application and
grant
review and grant approval and funding is not simply funneling out money.
Q. Well many institutions in the country won't accept
money from CTR;
will they?
A. Oh, there are a few.
Q. Harvard?
A. Harvard accepts money. We've got a number of
grants at Harvard. One
current member and one former member of our Scientific Advisory Board
was
from Harvard.
Q. Former member.
*27 A. One former member and --
Q. Now --
A. -- one current member.
Q. Now by using the term "funnel," I didn't mean
to imply anything
nefarious by that. The CTR takes a look at various scientists who want
money to conduct research, and they make a judgment whether that would
be a
worthwhile project; correct?
A. No, sir, that's not the way it's done. There's
a very formal,
structured application process where projects are presented to the
Scientific Advisory Board by the investigators.
Q. And --
A. So --
Q. -- the investigator is the applicant who wants
money to fund a
project; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. And then that is reviewed by the Scientific
Advisory
Board; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And do you have a budget at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And then what happens next?
A. Well the -- it would be simpler if we just went
through the entire
review process from beginning to end. But what happens next, very simply,
is the projects presented at a given time in a given cycle are reviewed
and
weighted by merit on the opinion of the Scientific Advisory Board.
And it
is competitive. A score is awarded. The rating process is identical
to that
used by the National Institutes of Health. And the projects which receive
the highest rating are those that are funded.
Q. Okay. So there's a rating system and then you
fund certain programs;
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now are there -- are there subjects
that are avoided?
A. Not really. There are subjects that are beyond
our scope of interest
which -- and we don't encourage a grant application in something that
is
foreign to our interest. We've -- we've focused on fundamental research
that will shed light in the areas of interest; namely, in smoking and
health.
Q. Can you -- I'm sorry. Were you done?
A. That includes pulmonary disease, cardiovascular
disease, cancer,
with a focus on the fundamental aspects of molecular and cellular biology,
immunology, genetics.
Q. Can you --
A. So we really haven't been interested in -- in,
let's say, orthopedic
problems, or in problems that are totally, distinctly out of the area
of
smoking and health.
Q. Doctor, can you direct your attention to Exhibit
10166. It's a
Philip Morris document dated March 31, 1980.
A. I have that.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, if I could inquire, we're
checking among our
various lists and don't have that on our designations. If we could
just
have one minute and perhaps check with plaintiffs' counsel.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't you hold just a
minute, though.
Go ahead.
MR. CIRESI: I may have misspoke. Did I say 10166?
10166.
THE COURT: That's what you said.
MR. CIRESI: Okay.
MR. WEBER: We have a 10165, not a 10166.
MR. CIRESI: We may have missed that, Your Honor.
That's our fault.
We'll withdraw that.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now doctor, with regard to the resources -- and
by "resources" I
mean money -- do you submit a budget to the tobacco companies on a
yearly
basis?
*28 A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that before or after you review?
A. Well the review process is a continuous operation,
culminating in
grant awards twice yearly. The budget process is also a continuing
process.
As we receive increasingly good grant applications, higher and higher
quality, and as inflation takes its toll, we factor in increases in
the
research budget as we approach the industry for funding.
Q. Okay. Can you direct your attention, then, to
Exhibit 20187.
Do you have it, sir?
A. I have that.
Q. All right. Now let me ask you, first of all,
in preparing for your
testimony, did you ascertain how much had been spent by the tobacco
companies in terms of funding to CTR from 1954 to 1994?
A. I don't think I've ever seen this document, --
Q. That's not what I asked you.
A. -- Mr. Ciresi.
I know you didn't ask me, but I just want you to
know if your questions
are predicated on this document, I need time to look at it.
Q. We'll get to that. I just wanted you to turn
there so that when we
get there you'll -- you'll have it. Okay? Right now my question is
very
simple.
In preparing for your testimony, were you told or
did you investigate
how much money the tobacco companies funded CTR with for the period
1954 to
1994?
A. That would --
Well the current amount of research funds that --
funding that we have
distributed comes to about 285 million dollars. In 1994, three or four
years back, I suppose it would be 225 million, give or take.
Q. Well that was what you were told, was it not,
in preparing for
testimony?
A. I was not told this. These are -- these are facts
from our files.
Q. Oh, yes. So you were aware of that.
A. I'm sorry?
Q. You were aware of that number.
A. I am aware of the numbers, certainly.
Q. All right. And that would be 225.8 million; is
that right?
A. I don't have the figures in front of me, Mr.
Ciresi. You obviously
do. I told you about 225 million dollars several years ago. I think
that's
correct.
Q. All right. Would you now take a look at Exhibit
20187, the one that
is in front of you.
A. I see it, but I haven't had time to absorb it.
Q. All right. Please take a look at it. Take the
time you need, sir.
A. All right.
Q. Okay. And I specifically would like to direct
your attention to the
second page, which shows total contributions to CTR for the period
1954 to
1994. Do you see that, over on the right-hand side of that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we're going to offer Exhibit
20187, --
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I would object to that.
MR. CIRESI: -- which --
MR. WEBER: It appears to be an expert report of
one of their experts,
and I think it's inappropriate for them to try to introduce it without
the
expert. If they want --
It appears that part of this includes a demonstrative
exhibit or two. I
have no objection to them using their demonstrative exhibits or two
on the
representation that they'll tie it up later with testimony, but I would
object to the report itself and anything beyond their demonstratives.
I
hope that --
*29 MR. CIRESI: If counsel would kindly wait until
I'm done making my
offer of proof, Your Honor, then I believe it would be appropriate
for him
to make his record.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 20187,
which is from Exhibit
2177, which was admitted pursuant to Rule 1006 on February 11 during
the
testimony of Mr. Merryman, and in that memorandum there was -- or excuse
me, in that exhibit there was stated by company the amount of money
spent
by CTR and the advertising and promotion amount of money spent, there
was
also the total domestic sales, and all of those amounts come from the
defendants' answers to interrogatories which were provided in this
case,
together with their annual reports and their SEC filings.
Exhibit 20187 simply totals up from that document,
which is admitted
into evidence, and it's being offered for that purpose, together with
the
demonstrative exhibits contained therein.
MR. WEBER: As -- as counsel is aware -- Your Honor,
we could address
this at side bar if the court would prefer. But there is a dispute
as to
which -- as to whether, in that initial admission, it was only the
demonstratives that Mr. Ciresi referred to, or whether they somehow
introduced their entire expert report through a witness who hadn't
prepared
it. And -- and that's -- that's the issue I was trying to address by
focusing on these demonstratives. I have no problem with the
demonstratives, but there is a fundamental issue about just what is
in
evidence with respect to that other exhibit Mr. Ciresi referred to.
THE COURT: Is this just a summary of that -- of
those figures from the
other exhibit?
MR. CIRESI: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you dispute that, counsel?
MR. WEBER: With respect to the expert report?
THE COURT: No, with respect to 2177.
MR. WEBER: 2177 has a variety of Mr. Much's calculations
in it. Yes, it
does.
THE COURT: Are you disputing that this is a summary
of that?
MR. WEBER: No, not with respect to the -- with --
with respect to that
situation. The issue is just what is in evidence, though, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Well if it's --
I'm going to receive it if it's just a summary.
You can move to strike
it if you check that and find out that this is not in fact an accurate
summary.
MR. WEBER: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay?
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now sir, if we look at Exhibit 2187, then, and
we look at the first
pie chart --
THE COURT: It will be received.
MR. CIRESI: Thank you, Your Honor.
If you could pull that up a little to see if we
can -- if you could
move a little bit to the -- the other way. Well, that's fine.
Q. First we have the total domestic sales of the
company during this
period of time. Do you see that, sir?
A. I do.
Q. 417,143,247,147 dollars; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And we show, based on the information provided
by the defendants,
that the total amount contributed to CTR during that period of time
was
326,040,272 dollars. Do you see that?
*30 A. Yes, sir. I accept the figures. I'm not sure
of the accuracy.
Q. I understand.
Now if we go to the next pie chart --
And while that's being put up, sir, I understand
that what you said is
your best recollection is there was 225 million, roughly, that was
spent on
funding projects during that period of time; right?
A. Funding grants in aid. And in addition to that
you would have
special projects, and in addition to that you would have overhead of
operating the office, and then in addition to that you would have
compensation of the members of the Scientific Advisory Board.
Q. Right. And that's what we're going to get to.
So right now we're
just showing the total funding of the CTR. You understand that.
A. I'm -- I can't verify that this figure is correct,
but it -- it's
certainly within reason.
Q. All right. Now you understand, though, that it
comes from the
defendants' own documents. You understand that.
A. It may -- may very well.
Q. All right.
A. I just don't -- I don't recognize this figure.
The grants awarded during that interval of 40 years
come to
approximately 225 million. Now it would appear there's another hundred
million dollars that would have gone to special projects, gone to overhead,
expenses of operating the office, heat, lights -- heat, light and water,
and expenses of staff and Scientific Advisory Board.
Q. I'll grant you that. So we're just -- we're sort
of giving you the
benefit of the entire amount here, 326 million. Do you see that?
A. I see it.
Q. All right. Now --
A. But I can't verify it.
Q. I understand. I just want you to know that it
comes from the
defendants' answers to interrogatories, which are sworn answers, and
from
their own documents. Do you understand that?
A. I accept what you tell me, Mr. Ciresi.
Q. Thank you.
Now if we go to the total contributions to CTR,
including that 326
million, that entire amount -- do you see that -- and we compare it
to
total advertising, marketing and promotion by these companies during
that
period of time, we see that what was spent on advertising, marketing
and
promotion was 47,083,702,001 dollars. Do you see that?
A. I see that number, yes.
Q. And that would be for the period from 1954 through
1994; correct,
sir?
A. That is the label.
Q. Okay. So that little sliver there is what was
sent over to CTR, in
comparison to what was spent on marketing, advertising and promotion;
correct?
A. That is what the chart reveals.
Q. Now would you accept -- once again I'm asking
you to accept -- my
calculation that the 326 million, if it was all spent on medical research,
that would be about 8.15 million dollars a year; is that right?
A. On average?
Q. Yes.
A. I -- I accept your arithmetic.
Q. Okay. And on average the companies would have
been spending one
billion 175 million dollars on marketing, promotion and advertising
during
that period of time. Do you accept that?
A. I -- I will, yes.
*31 Q. So that the percentage spent looking at the
health issue as
contrasted with marketing the product was about seven-tenths of one
percent
on average per year. Would you accept that?
A. I'll accept that, with the provision that this
is unique. There is
no other industry that has funded biomedical research to the same extent
that the tobacco industry has.
Q. How many industries are you aware of, doctor,
where it is reported
that their product kills 417,000 Americans a year? How many other
industries?
A. I can't -- I can't tell you that. We -- we've
got a lot of problems
with environmental contamination, with automobile accidents and failures,
with asbestos, with a host of other societal problems, and I can't
answer
that question.
Q. Not one is even close. Is there, sir?
A. I can't answer your question.
Q. That's another one where you don't want to guess
because if you
don't know, you don't say anything; correct?
A. That's right.
Q. You've never looked at that issue; have you?
A. I'm sorry, I have looked at the issues. I just
related to you some
things that come quickly to mind.
Q. Have you investigated what other industry --
A. No, sir.
Q. Thank you.
Now if we take a look at what -- what you said was
spent on grants and
contracts and special projects, we could take a look at Defendants'
Exhibit
1962A. Can you look at that.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd -- I would object to
this. This is a defense
demonstrative, and pursuant to the court's order they were to be disclosed,
but there was nothing in the court's order that said parties could
start
using each other's demonstrative exhibits prior to the time the party
had
used it. It was a disclosure exchange pursuant to the court's order.
MR. CIRESI: Well certainly he's not arguing about
the foundation on
this, Your Honor. It's his exhibit.
THE COURT: Well, has he had a chance to look at
it?
MR. CIRESI: Yes, I gave -- I gave him notice of
this.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEBER: He put it on his list, and our position
is that the
demonstrative exchange pursuant to the court's order was that the parties
had a right to use their own demonstratives, not that that gave other
parties the right to put demonstratives out before the party had its
own
option to do so.
THE COURT: Well, I certainly haven't prohibited
it. I don't -- I don't
see what the problem is, unless I'm missing something.
MR. WEBER: Well it's just simply an issue of a party
preparing a
demonstrative, having to exchange it, the court order, and wanting
to use
it in the course of the presentation of its own case. That's the issue
I
raise, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I don't see a serious problem.
Go ahead.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer the Defense Exhibit
1962A.
A. I'm sorry, I'm missing a number.
Q. It's in volume one, sir.
A. And it is --
Q. Right in the front. I'm sorry, I should have
directed you to the
right volume. Do you have it, doctor?
*32 A. I have it now.
Q. And you have seen this document before?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And did you look at this when you were
preparing for your
examination?
A. Yes.
Q. So if we add the two numbers here --
You show the grant-in-aid and contracts, 225.8 million;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's 1255 research projects over the 40
years; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And 1,051 researchers; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And 5400 publications; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now --
THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me, counsel.
Q. And then --
THE COURT: Counsel, this has not been received in
evidence.
MR. CIRESI: I'm sorry, I thought I offered it. I
apologize.
THE COURT: You offered it. It hasn't been received.
MR. CIRESI: I apologize, Your Honor. I thought it
was offered. I
thought you received it.
THE COURT: It was offered, it was not received.
MR. CIRESI: Oh, you have to give --
I'm sorry, Your Honor, we have the new process.
THE COURT: Well I don't mean to be testy, but --
MR. CIRESI: No, it's our fault.
THE COURT: -- we're losing control of the exhibits
if they aren't given
immediately to the reporter. Okay?
MR. CIRESI: Is it received now, Your Honor?
THE COURT: 1962A is received.
MR. CIRESI: I apologize to the court.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Doctor, we'll go back to it now. You have 225.8
million for
grant-in- aids; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for CTR special projects, 18.1 million; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So you've got a total of two hundred and what,
forty-three point
nine million?
A. Yes.
Q. And that would be over 40 years; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that means that from what we had, we showed
you had 326 million,
so about 86 million dollars would have gone to administration or other
expenses during that period of time; correct?
A. And overhead, yes.
Q. Yes. And that would be roughly about -- little
over two million
dollars a year during that 40-year period.
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. Okay. So if we have, let's say, 240 million dollars
divided by the
40 years, that's six million dollars a year that went to contracts
for
research, on average; is that right?
A. Contracts and grants.
Q. Grants and special projects.
A. And special projects.
Q. On average; correct?
A. Well you've done the arithmetic there. I haven't
done that, so --
Q. Would you accept that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Two hundred forty divided by 40 is six
million dollars a year;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now we still have the one billion 175 million
dollars per year spent
on advertising, marketing and promotion; correct?
A. I don't know that. I can't verify that number.
But it doesn't
surprise me.
Q. So that based on your numbers, your numbers,
this industry would
have spent one-half of one percent per year on average what it spent
on
marketing, promoting and advertising its product; isn't that right?
A. Yes. But I -- that's apples and oranges. If they
hadn't advertised
and sold their product, we wouldn't have had anything for our research
budget.
*33 Q. If they hadn't advertised and marketed and
promoted their
product, we might not be here today; right, sir?
A. Oh, I expect you would have been here, Mr. Ciresi.
Q. You do.
Now many of the grantees of the CTR have found that
smoking increases
the risk for diseases; correct?
A. You'll have to rephrase that for me.
Q. Sure.
Researchers who have conducted research funded by
the CTR have found
that smoking increases the risk of diseases; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now has the CTR ever conducted a survey of its
researchers to
ascertain how many of them believe in their scientific judgment that
smoking causes lung cancer?
A. No, sir. I -- I think our -- the investigators
that we've supported
are sophisticated enough to have figured out for themselves the
relationship between smoking and various diseases. No, we've not undertaken
any such survey.
Q. Has the CTR ever conducted a survey of its grantees
to determine how
many of them believe scientifically that smoking causes chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease?
A. No. The answer is the same.
Q. Have you ever conducted a survey to determine
how many of the
grantees believe that smoking causes oral cancer?
A. No. And the answer is the same. And we again
come back to the old
issue of causation.
Q. Has the CTR ever conducted a survey of its own
grantees to determine
how many of them believe that smoking causes laryngeal cancer?
A. No, sir. And the answer is the same.
Q. Has the CTR ever conducted a survey of its own
grantees to determine
how many of them believe that smoking causes esophageal cancer?
A. No, sir. And the answer is the same.
Q. Is the answer the same for kidney cancer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is the answer the same for bladder cancer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is the answer the same for pancreatic cancer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is the answer the same for heart disease?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So CTR has never conducted any survey of any
of its grantees with
respect to their beliefs as scientists as to what diseases are caused
by
smoking; correct?
A. We never had occasion to do that, no.
Q. Now sir, can you direct your attention to Exhibit
11561, which would
be in book two, sir.
A. I have it.
Q. Now this is a memo that is a Liggett document
dated March 15th,
1961. Do you see that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now this was -- notice was given of this
document. Did you
have an opportunity to review it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention to the top.
You see it's a -- on
the letterhead of Arthur D. Little?
A. I see that.
Q. Okay. And it's designated "CONFIDENTIAL &
LIMITED," do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. And you'll recall that Arthur D. Little was one
of the research
organizations that you said was respected; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was in that 1958 trip report that we looked
at where the
three scientists came over from England and visited all of the companies
and institutions?
*34 A. I recall that.
Q. Okay. And it's reported here that, number one,
"There are
biologically active materials present in cigarette tobacco.
"These are: cancer causing
"cancer promoting
"poisonous"
And "stimulating, pleasurable, and flavorful." Do
you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. Okay. Now Liggett funded some studies at CTR
and special projects
over the course of the last 40 years; has it not?
A. Liggett was out and in and out, and I can't reconstruct
that because
it was far before my time.
Q. Okay. But you -- you know based on your investigation
into the
history that Liggett was in and out of CTR; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And when they were in, they were funding some
projects, including
special projects; correct?
A. I don't know that, no.
Q. Well we saw that one special project at Washington
University that
they were going to fund. Do you recall that one?
A. I don't -- I don't recall that that was a special
project. I don't
-- I don't remember that. They were talking about a potential study
at
Washington University. I don't even know whether it was done or not.
Q. Maybe I misunderstood you, sir, and I apologize
-- apologize if I
did. I thought you had said that you recalled that there was a study
or a
special project that was done at Washington University.
A. No, I -- I recall that Washington University
has had funding from
us, and I misspoke if I --
Q. All right.
A. -- said anything else.
Q. So they had funding, and it may have been special
projects or it may
have been a grant; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, are you aware that other defendant
manufacturers,
back in the fifties and sixties, had found cancer-causing and
cancer-promoting biologically active materials in cigarette tobacco?
A. Ask me that again.
MR. CIRESI: Certainly. Could we have the question
back, please, Mr.
Stirewalt.
(Record read by the court
reporter.)
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you learn that?
A. Well I -- I don't know. Cumulative information
over the years. I
know that the companies have done a great deal of chemical investigation,
and indeed identified certain chemicals as potentially carcinogenic.
Q. Did the companies advise you of that during the
time you've been
with CTR?
A. I don't know where -- where the information derives.
Did we have a
specific conference to discuss the issue? No. But I certainly acquired
the
information, and I can't tell you the origin.
Q. But it would have been from the companies themselves;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you aware that Brown & Williamson
back in 1952 had isolated
benzopyrene?
A. Not specifically, no.
Q. Can you take a look at Exhibit 13555.
A. I have that.
Q. This is another document that notice was provided.
Did you get an
opportunity to look at this one, sir?
A. I don't believe I've seen this one, no.
Q. And you can see that it's a Brown & Williamson
document?
A. It appears to be, yes.
*35 Q. Would you kindly turn your attention to page
nine. And I'm not
using the Bates number now, just nine at the bottom.
By the way, it's dated 24th of December, 1952; correct?
A. Page nine?
Q. Yes. And sir, the -- the first page was dated
December 24, 1952?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And page nine at the bottom, do you see
where it says
"CANCER?"
A. Yes.
Q. And do you see there in the third paragraph,
"The B&W lab has in the
past made a partial isolation and identification of the aromatic
hydrocarbons, benzopyrene, in both smoke and original tobacco from
RALEIGH
blend cigarettes. More conclusive evidence will be forthcoming from
the
chemical analysis." See that?
A. I see that statement, yes.
Q. And in the course of your investigations, did
you come to learn that
the companies knew as early as 1952 that there were carcinogenic-causing
particles or elements in cigarette smoke?
A. Mr. Ciresi, I didn't do any investigation of
this issue, and there
was no reason for me to. And this is an internal company document,
and
there would be no way that I would have seen this previously.
Q. Okay. But let -- let me ask this, doctor: When
you joined the CTR,
you knew that you were going to have some part in allocating funds
for
research; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Felt that was an important thing to do?
A. I think it is a unique opportunity. I've been
very gratified by the
chance to support the biomedical research effort.
Q. And when a scientist or a doctor does that, she
or he wants to learn
about what the sponsoring companies might know about the product; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wanted to do that; didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would agree that generally the companies
know more about
their products than anybody else. Fair?
A. I'm not sure of that. It's a fair assumption,
but I'm not certain
that's true.
Q. Now when you joined the companies, did you say
to RJR, "I'd like to
sit down with your scientists as I want to satisfy myself what you
know
about your product?"
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you sit down with Philip Morris and say to
the officials there,
"I want to know what you know about your product?"
A. No.
Q. Did you sit down with Brown & Williamson
and do that?
A. No.
Q. Did you sit down with any of the defendant manufacturers
and do
that?
A. No. And there was no reason to.
Q. So you didn't see any reason to educate yourself
at that time with
regard to what the companies knew about their products.
A. Mr. Ciresi, at the time I joined the Scientific
Advisory Board I
already knew of carcinogenic substances that had been identified and
associated with condensate of tobacco smoke. I didn't need to sit down
with
their scientists to find this out.
Q. That's not what I asked you.
A. This was -- this was knowledge that was in the
-- in the public
domain.
Q. Sir, that's not what I asked you, though. I asked
you whether or not
you wanted to sit down with them to find out what they knew, what they
knew
about their products, since, as you said, it's fair to assume that
manufacturers know more about their products than anybody else.
*36 Didn't you want to learn what they knew?
A. Well I think -- I think you're mistaking the
mission of CTR. Our
mission is not to investigate the company research, our mission is
to
support biomedical research. And it is beyond the realm of my charge
to sit
down with the company scientists, as you say.
Q. So let me see if I understand. Your charge was
not to find out what
the companies knew. Fair?
A. Well I think that's fair, yes.
Q. Okay. And you know that The Tobacco Institute's
charge wasn't to
find out what the companies knew. You know that; don't you?
A. I know nothing about The Tobacco Institute. I've
had no interchange
with it. As -- as I understand it, The Tobacco Institute is the public
relations arm and -- of the industry, and that is not a part of --
of my
expertise.
Q. We have the industry, which are the manufacturers;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. We have CTR, which is a research arm of the industry;
correct?
A. Well it's not a research arm of the industry.
It is a -- it is a
biomedical research funding institution that in turn is funded by the
tobacco industry.
Q. And it's going to be dissolved if immunity is
given to the industry;
isn't it?
A. The recommendation of the attorneys general --
MR. WEBER: Objection. Objection to the mischaracterization
again, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I don't think it's relevant, counsel.
Q. We have CTR, we have the tobacco industry, and
then we have The
Tobacco Institute; correct?
A. Those three entities exist, yes.
Q. Do you know of any other entity that's funded
by the tobacco
industry on a united basis where they pay for all the salaries, pay
for all
the activities, other than their own companies, CTR and TI?
A. I don't know of anything else, but there certainly
might be other
organizations.
Q. Now, assuming those are the three, and I want
you to assume that it
wasn't your responsibility to find out what the companies knew, and
I want
you to assume that it wasn't TI's responsibility to find out what the
companies knew, then the only ones that could tell the American public,
indeed the world, of what the companies knew would be the companies;
correct?
MR. WEBER: Let me object to that, Your Honor, it's
argumentative and
filled with assumptions.
THE COURT: Well you may answer that.
A. I can't answer that question. I suppose you're
-- you're correct in
your assumption.
Q. Okay. And you would agree, would you not, doctor,
that it is fair
and reasonable for the American public, when they are given a
representation by the industry, as they were in the Frank Statement,
to
rely on the industry to tell the American public what they knew?
A. I don't know that that -- that appears in the
Frank Statement.
Q. You don't know what appears in the Frank Statement?
A. Your statement that the industry will disclose
all of their internal
research findings.
Q. Well when they say that they will cooperate closely
with those whose
task it is to safeguard the public health, when they say we accept
an
interest in people's health as a basic responsibility, paramount to
every
other consideration in our business, don't you believe they're saying
they're going to tell the public what they know?
*37 A. I think -- I think it says exactly what it
says.
Q. Don't you think that means they're going to tell
the public exactly
what they know about their product with regard to health? Don't you
think
that, sir?
A. Mr. Ciresi, your question begs a simplistic answer,
and that can't
be given. While we know that there are carcinogens in cigarette smoke,
nobody has ever been able to produce cancer in any experimental animals
by
exposure to these chemicals. Therefore, one could say, yeah, if you
go out
and tell everybody that there are carcinogens in there, it will be
misinterpreted. We still don't know the fundamental cause of lung cancer,
although we know perfectly well that it is associated in much higher
incidence in smokers than it is in non-smokers.
Q. Sir, my question is: Do you not believe it is
fair for the American
public to rely on the representations of the industry in the Frank
Statement that the industry would disclose what they knew about their
product?
A. It doesn't state that in the Frank Statement.
Q. So when the industry said that we accept a responsibility
in the
public health, paramount to all other considerations in our business,
that
doesn't mean that the industry was saying they would disclose what
they
knew about their product and when they knew it; is that right?
A. I think it means exactly what it said, that they
accept a paramount
interest in public health, period.
Q. And "paramount" means at the highest level; doesn't
it?
A. I think so.
Q. And when one is worried about their health with
the use of a
product, you would expect the manufacturer to tell you all that it
knows
about its product; correct, since that is paramount?
A. I don't think that necessarily follows. I --
I think the fact that
the companies were doing research of this type -- I'm happy to see
this
document. I think the fact that they were doing this kind of research
is
admirable.
Q. In 1961, do you know if Liggett told the American
public that they
had cancer-causing and cancer-promoting biologically active materials
in
their cigarettes?
A. I -- I do not know what Liggett may have told
the public in 1961.
Q. Do you have any idea how many children have started
smoking since
1961?
A. No, sir.
Q. Can you direct your attention, doctor, to Exhibit
12418.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, might now be a good time
for our break, or --
THE COURT: Okay. All right. We'll recess, reconvene
at 2:00 o'clock.
(Recess taken.)
THE CLERK: All rise. Court is again in session.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
THE CLERK: Please be seated.
THE COURT: Counsel.
MR. CIRESI: Thank you, Your Honor.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
(Collective "Good afternoon.")
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Good afternoon, doctor.
A. Good afternoon, Mr. Ciresi.
Q. Doctor, when we'd recessed, I'd asked you to
direct your attention
to Exhibit 12418, and that is in volume two.
A. I have it.
Q. All right. You'll recall, sir, when we recessed,
we were discussing
the issue of the defendants' investigation into the presence of
carcinogenic compounds in the cigarette smoke. Do you remember that?
A. Correct.
Q. Now this is a memo dated November 2nd, 1959 to
Mr. Kenneth H.
Hoover, who at the time was research director for RJR, and it's from
Dr.
Rodgman, Alan Rodgman. Do you see his name on the last page there?
A. I see it.
Q. And did you have an opportunity to review this
document before you
came in to testify?
A. I don't recall having seen this document.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 12418.
MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 12418.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Doctor, were you aware that the defendants discovered
the presence
of carcinogenic substances in the tobacco smoke before others in the
public
discovered that information?
A. I don't know that, Mr. Ciresi.
Q. You see that this memo is dated November 2nd,
1959?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And it's to Mr. Hoover; correct?
A. I presume that. It doesn't say to Mr. Hoover,
it's got Mr. Hoover's
name at the top.
Q. Now --
A. There's no letterhead.
Q. Okay. Do you see that in the first paragraph
it is reported that "In
1954 the first report of the presence of a carcinogenic, paren, cancer-
producing, close paren, polycyclic hydrocarbon 3,4-benzpyrene in cigarette
smoke was published?" Do you see that?
A. That is the statement, yes.
Q. Okay. Now you do know that, based on the document
you looked at this
morning, that benzopyrene was discovered prior to that by Brown &
Williamson?
A. I don't know that. I saw the document.
Q. Well the document reported that; correct, doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, two years before this; correct?
*2 A. I think that's right.
Q. And this memorandum of Dr. Rodgman then goes
on to state that,
"Since then," talking about 1954, "approximately 60 similar compounds
have
been isolated from the smoke of cigarettes." Correct?
A. That is so stated.
Q. Now do you know if in 1959 there had been published
reports of 60
carcinogenic -- which are cancer-producing -- polycyclic hydrocarbons
that
had been reported in the published literature? Do you know?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Did you ever conduct any investigation to determine
that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know if the CTR ever conducted such an
investigation?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if any of the defendants ever conducted
such an
investigation?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Now it goes on to say, "Eight of the polycyclic
hydrocarbons
isolated from the smoke are known to produce cancer in mice. Another
five
or six are suspect as cancer-producing agents in laboratory animals.
"There is no evidence that any of these compounds
will produce cancer
in man. Nevertheless, there is a distinct possibility that these substances
would have a carcinogenic effect on the human respiratory system."
Do you
see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall yesterday we discussed the issue
of a prospective
randomized study?
A. Yes.
Q. And I was asking you whether it would be medically
ethical to
conduct such a study, to subject people to cigarette smoke who weren't
smoking, do you remember that?
A. I remember your question.
Q. And you said that wasn't necessary because people
were smoking. You
remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now --
A. You're taking -- you're taking it a little out
of context. But I
remember that.
Q. That was in essence what you said; wasn't it?
A. Close.
Q. All right. And it would be fair to state that
there have been
thousands of articles reported in the literature since 1959 which show
--
have shown that human beings who were smoking have developed lung cancer;
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And hundreds of thousands of people since 1959
have developed lung
cancer who were smokers; correct?
A. And many that were not smokers.
Q. And studies in the literature have shown that
when people quit
smoking, the rate of lung cancer dropped precipitously; correct?
A. That is the epidemiologic data.
Q. Now Dr. Rodgman goes on to state, "Medical experience
has shown that
man responds to various chemical substances in the same manner as
experimental animals." Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't dispute that; do you?
A. I dispute the concept that you can equate the
laboratory animal with
the human.
Q. That's not --
A. There are differences.
Q. That's not what I asked.
You don't dispute the fact that medical experience
has shown that man
responds to various chemical substances in the same manner as experimental
animals.
A. Yes, I do dispute that. "The same manner" implies
that there's a
universality, and that's not true.
*3 Q. Well, you understand that by "the same manner"
here, Dr. Rodgman
was talking to the fact that cancer was developed. Do you understand
that?
A. No, sir. I -- I'm missing the point again.
Q. Okay. You don't --
You can't conclude that from this sentence; is that
right?
A. Dr. Rodgman states, "Medical experience has shown
that man responds
to various chemical substances in the same manner as experimental animals."
I wouldn't say the same.
Q. Okay. And he was talking about the carcinogenic
effect of certain
chemicals on the respiratory system; wasn't he?
A. I guess so.
Q. All right. And he goes on to say, "It follows
therefore that it
would be better for the consumer if cigarette smoke were devoid of
such
compounds;" correct?
A. That's what he's written.
Q. Now, none of the defendants have made their products
devoid of such
compounds; have they?
A. I don't --
I can't tell you that. I'm not an expert in that
area.
Q. Have you ever asked?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever have a curiosity in that regard?
A. Yes. Certainly I'm curious, but --
Q. You are. Well when you had that curiosity, did
you say, "Gee, maybe
I'll ask one of the members of the companies who sits on the board
of
directors, who is paying my salary, that question?" Did that ever occur
to
you?
A. No, it didn't, as a matter of fact.
Q. And when you meet with the Scientific Advisory
Board to evaluate
prospective grants, how often a year do you do that?
A. Twice a year.
Q. So the Scientific Advisory Board of the CTR only
meets twice a year;
correct?
A. Well it meets a third time for evaluation of
total program and
planning for the grants process.
Q. Okay. So the members of the Scientific Advisory
Board come together
three times a year; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now if we can go back to Dr. Rodgman's memorandum,
he goes on to
state, "As described in RDR, 1956, No. 9, we in the R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco
Company Research Department corroborated the published findings with
respect to 3,4- benzpyrene, obtained this compound in crystalline form,
and
positively identified it as a constituent of smoke on the basis of
its
chemical and physical properties." Do you see that, sir?
A. I see that.
Q. And that's a polycyclic hydrocarbon?
A. Correct.
Q. Benzopyrene?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it an alkane?
A. I don't know whether you -- it's classified that
way or not. I'm not
a chemist.
Q. Okay. Benzene or benz --
Benzene is a highly carcinogenic substance; is it
not?
A. Benzpyrene is a carcinogenic substance. Is that
what you're asking
me?
Q. I am asking you that.
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. It is. Okay.
And it's part of the benzene family; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And benzene is highly carcinogenic; isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now Dr. Rodgman goes on to state, "Some thirty-odd
polycyclic
hydrocarbons have since been similarly characterized in these
laboratories." Do you see that?
*4 A. I do.
Q. And those polycyclic hydrocarbons are also highly
carcinogenic;
aren't they, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And in tests they found that eight of these were
carcinogenic to
mouse epidermis; is that correct?
A. That's the statement.
Q. And "mouse epidermis," that means the skin of
the mouse; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Dr. Rodgman goes on to state that "Cholanthrane,
a potent
carginogen, is one of three not yet reported by other investigators."
Do
you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. Do you know if RJR made this information public
at that time?
A. I do not.
Q. Were you curious when you started with the CTR
as to whether or not
any of the comanies had information relating to the public health that
they
had not disclosed to the public?
A. That was not a responsibility of taking on administrative
control
over The Council for Tobacco Research, and no, I did not investigate
that
area.
Q. I understand you testified this morning that
it wasn't your
responsibility. I'm asking if you were curious.
A. Not particularly. These are matters that are
developed by the
company, and it is not of chemical interest to the research program
of the
CTR.
Q. So you just left that up to the company; correct,
sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you think the company would disclose information
it had
regarding the public health if it had that information?
A. I didn't think about it at all, Mr. Ciresi.
Q. Did you ask Dr. Spears, for example, "Doctor,
do you have
information regarding the public health in the files of Lorillard that
have
not -- has not been disclosed to the public?"
A. No.
Q. Never asked that question.
A. No.
Q. Did you ever ask that question of any of the
other officials of the
manufacturing defendants who have sat on the CTR board over the 11
years
you've been with that organization, sir?
A. No.
Q. Not once; correct?
A. No.
Q. Can you direct your attention, please, to Exhibit
10686, which would
be in volume one, sir.
A. I have that. It's very difficult to read.
Q. I apologize on behalf of myself and the defendants.
That's the best
copy they gave us, sir.
Do you see that it's a confidential memo to Mr.
Millhiser?
A. I see "CONFIDENTIAL" and then Mr. Millhiser's
name. I don't know
whether he's the author or the recipient.
Q. Do you see right below that it's J. E. Lincoln?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know Jett Lincoln from Philip Morris?
A. I have met him.
Q. Chief financial officer; correct, sir?
A. He was. He retired about the time that I joined
CTR.
Q. Okay. And he had been with the company for a
long period of time;
had he not?
A. I don't know.
Q. You knew Mr. Millhiser was with Philip Morris;
correct?
A. I -- I only know it in connection with this litigation.
I did not
know Mr. Millhiser.
Q. If you'd turn to the last page, do you see that
the name there is J.
E. Lincoln?
A. I see that.
Q. And over on the left-hand side it's got his initials,
then with a
colon, then it's got BK, who would be the person that typed this for
him.
Do you see that?
*5 A. I see that.
Q. Okay. Fair to assume that this is Mr. Lincoln's
memo to Mr.
Millhiser?
A. Yes.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 10686.
MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive Exhibit 10686.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. I'm going to help you with this one, sir, because
it is difficult to
read.
Now you know that Mr. Millhiser was president and
vice chairman of
Philip Morris?
A. I don't know that, but I accept that.
Q. And you do know that at one point, though, that
Mr. Lincoln was the
chief financial officer of the company.
A. I do know that.
Q. You know that he also at one time held the position
of
vice-president of planning?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Let's take a look at this memo, and I have some
questions concerning
it as we go through it.
"TWO COMPLEXES.
"Self-analysis, confirmed by a professional, Mike
Kolfgott, leads to
the following views of our relation to the health problem. All of us,
or at
least most of us, in the tobacco industry are caught between a guilt
complex and a power complex.
"The guilt complex is a simple matter. We tend to
suffer from the
sternly repressed," and he's underscored that, "fear that our opponents
are
right and we are wrong on the health question and that we are thus
devoting
our business lives to the propogation of lung cancer."
Now were you able to read that along with me, sir?
A. I -- I agree with that, yes.
Q. Okay. Now --
A. I -- I agree that that's what's written here.
Q. You don't agree that they were devoting their
lives to the
propogation of lung cancer; is that what you're saying?
A. I think this is interesting speculation, thought.
Q. Interesting speculation by an individual who
was the chief financial
officer of Philip Morris corporation; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Directed to the president and vice chairman of
the corporation;
correct?
A. You have told me so.
Q. Now sir, I'd like to talk about just from a medical
standpoint, not
--
I'd like you to assume something for a minute, that
smoking did cause
lung cancer, or it was a very real possibility. Can you -- can you
assume
that?
A. Yes.
Q. From a medical standpoint, if there was a body
of scientific
knowledge out there, an opinion that it did, do you think those folks
who
held that opinion should be considered opponents if you're selling
a
product that may be causing that injury?
A. What is your question?
Q. Should you look at them as opponents, or should
you look at them as
raising serious health issues that should be investigated?
A. I would say that's a bad choice of language.
We're all on the same
side.
Q. All should be on the same side; correct, sir?
A. I think we are.
Q. Oh. All should be on the same side; correct?
A. I think we are.
Q. Well Mr. Lincoln -- and let me make clear for
the record, Jett
Lincoln -- he felt that they were opponents; correct?
A. He expressed that.
*6 Q. And he talked about the guilt complex; didn't
he?
A. He did.
Q. And then he goes on to talk about a power complex;
doesn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. "The power complex is a matter of natural human
resentment of
attempts by outsiders to play a role in our industry. Product modifications
suggested by outsiders meet with an emotional response that would not
occur
if the same modifications were originally suggested by insiders." Now
have
I read that right?
A. Not quite.
Q. Where was I wrong?
A. It says "emotional resistance," not "emotional
response."
Q. Ah, "emotional resistance." Thank you.
Now we just saw Dr. Rodgman, an insider, suggesting
the removal of
carcinogens; didn't we?
A. We --
The document we saw previously --
Q. Yes.
A. -- did say that, yes.
Q. And sir, you know, based on your 11 years as
CTR -- at CTR, that
there has been no removal of carcinogens from cigarette smoke. You
know
that; don't you?
A. No, sir, I do not know that. I don't engage in
the manufacture,
design, or research into the manufacture of cigarettes.
Q. Do you think it should make a difference if these
compounds were
causing cancer, whether it was suggested by an insider or an outsider?
A. I don't see any distinction one way or the other.
Q. You don't think --
You don't think there should be any distinction;
do you, sir?
A. No.
Q. You think that if that is something that should
be done to make the
product safe, it should be done regardless of who suggested it; correct?
A. You're asking me to interpret what Mr. Jett Lincoln
was thinking,
and I'm not able to do that.
Q. No, I'm -- I'm asking you what you think. You
think that regardless
of who suggested it, it should be done if it would make the product
safer;
don't you?
A. I don't think I could make that blanket statement.
I think any
reasonable suggestion about making a product safer is appropriate.
Q. Well, let me ask you to assume this: Assume you
have a car and it
has faulty brakes. You don't know it. But I know it, and I tell General
Motors that there is a defect in their braking system in the type of
model
of car that you have. Wouldn't you want General Motors to act on that?
A. Yes.
Q. Even if I was an outsider; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You would want that product made safe; wouldn't
you, sir?
A. Correct.
Q. You want to rely on the manufacturer to take
action that would make
it safe; don't you?
A. I think so.
Q. And you do rely on manufacturers to do that;
don't you, sir?
A. I think I do.
Q. And you --
The public has a right to rely on people to do that,
who manufacture
products; don't they?
A. Well I'm not an expert on public right either,
but I -- I accept
your premise.
Q. As a consumer you accept that premise; don't
you?
A. I don't know what consumers accept.
Q. You as a consumer accept that premise, that assumption;
don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wouldn't want General Motors to say,
"There's a controversy,
I'm not going to correct it;" would you?
*7 A. This is a little vague for me, but --
I accept the idea that if there is a defect, it
should be remedied.
Q. Yes. And you wouldn't want General Motors to
try to create a
controversy to say that there wasn't a defect; would you?
A. No.
Q. That would be wrong; wouldn't it?
A. I suppose.
Q. It would be in your judgment an act by the manufacturer
that was
inappropriate; correct, sir?
A. No. You're telling me what my judgment would
be. I don't know. I'd
have to know the specific circumstances.
Q. If they didn't remedy the defect because they
wanted to create a
controversy, you'd consider it inappropriate; wouldn't you?
A. No, sir. I would have to know the circumstances.
Q. Let's go on to see what else Mr. Lincoln said.
"The very natural
operation of these two complexes causes a difference between the
manufacturer and the consumer viewpoint on the health question." Do
you see
that?
A. I do.
Q. So what Mr. Lincoln is basically saying is that
there was a moral
dilemma for him between --
MR. WEBER: Object --
Q. -- a guilt complex and a power complex; --
MR. WEBER: Objection.
Q. -- wasn't he?
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor. We're asking the
question of
speculation on someone from 1958.
THE COURT: Well I think he's entitled to interpret
what he understands
the document to say.
A. I can't -- I -- I can't tell what was in Mr.
Lincoln's thought, and
I don't -- I don't read here anything about morality.
Q. Well he does say that the very natural operation
of these two
complexes causes a difference between the manufacturer and the consumer
viewpoint on the health question. Doesn't he say that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But sir, you would agree as a medical doctor,
who's taken the
Hippocratic oath, that the manufacturer's viewpoint on that health
question
should be consonant with the consumer; wouldn't you?
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, the Hippocratic
oath has nothing to
do with manufacturing.
THE COURT: Well it has something to do with this
witness, though,
counsel.
You may answer.
Q. Wouldn't you, sir?
A. I -- I missed when you said "Hippocratic oath."
If you're saying does the manufacturer have a responsibility
to
investigate and remedy a defect in his product, I -- I would say yes.
Q. And that manufacturer's viewpoint on that health
issue should and
must be consonant with the consumer's viewpoint in your judgment; correct?
A. You are -- you are trying to make my judgments
for me. It would
depend on the circumstances. I think there are varying circumstances
here
that would have to be identified before I could give you a blanket
answer.
Q. Should the manufacturer be able to twist the
facts, as we saw in
that one memorandum on the health issue?
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's argumentative.
THE COURT: It is argumentative. Rephrase it.
Q. Do you recall the memorandum of Hill & Knowlton
where it said that
the tobacco industry had twisted the facts?
*8 A. I remember --
I don't remember the language, Mr. Ciresi, but I
remember the Hill &
Knowlton memorandum.
Q. You don't remember it twisted the facts?
A. I don't remember that.
Q. Well let me get you back to that memo, sir. If
you could go to
Exhibit 18904, and that would be in volume two.
A. I have that.
Q. And if you would go to the Bates number page
497 at the bottom, the
lower right-hand corner. Do you see that, sir?
A. I see that.
Q. Okay. Now do you see "Problem 3:
"How to validate this message of assurance. The
men talked to in the
cigarette companies tend to," and then it's got subparagraphs listed
under
there.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see that?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. If you'd go to the next page, under (c), it starts
on page 497 and
goes over to the next page, and do you see what it says there, "In
the
past, industry has given little twists to the facts of science, to
convert
them into sales propoganda, without much risk. The cigarette industry
has
indeed been doing this for years." Remember that?
A. I see it now. I don't believe we read that previously.
Q. Well, the record will reflect whether we did
or didn't. I would ask
you to assume that we did.
If we did, you just don't remember it; correct?
A. I just don't remember.
Q. Now assuming that that is correct, that's what
the industry did,
twisted the facts on the health question, that would be inappropriate;
wouldn't it, sir?
A. I think you --
Yes, it's inappropriate. But this is Hill &
Knowlton's interpretation.
Q. It's Hill & Knowlton's statement based on
their interviews of the
tobacco people; correct?
A. It's so stated.
Q. Yes. And what they then said, Hill & Knowlton,
"We can therefore
readily understand its assumption that the same technique will work
now, in
devising propoganda. But it is -- it is highly important to note that
the
deep issues of life-and-death that are now involved make highly doubtful
the question as to whether the familiar techniques can be relied on.
The
stakes are too large; the penalties for losing could be too great."
That's what they say; right, sir?
A. That's what's written here, yes.
Q. And if a manufacturer twisted the facts on matters
of life and
death, that, sir, would be inappropriate; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the stakes, the results to those corporations,
should be great;
shouldn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. Now the compound that Dr. Jett was talking about
in his memorandum
back in 1958 was benzopyrene; wasn't it? Exhibit 10686, in volume one,
sir.
A. This is a memorandum not by Dr. Jett, but by
Mr. Jett Lincoln.
Q. I'm sorry. By Mr. Jett Lincoln.
The compound that is being talked about was benzopyrene;
wasn't it?
A. Does he mention benzopyrene? I haven't read this,
so I can't tell.
Q. If you look down at the bottom, it says "THE
COMPOUND." See that?
A. I think I -- I think I read that, Mr. Ciresi.
It's very difficult.
Q. It says, "BENZPYRENE MUST GO;" doesn't it?
*9 A. I guess that's what it says.
Q. And what he says is "The analysis above," where
he was talking about
the power complex and the guilt complex, "leads to the following
conclusion:
"BENZPYRENE MUST GO." Correct?
A. That I guess is what it says.
Q. It must be taken out of the product; correct?
A. That -- I guess that's what it says, yes.
Q. Because it was carcinogenic; correct?
A. That is Mr. Lincoln's commentary. Mr. Lincoln
was a financial
officer.
Q. Yes, he was a financial officer. He was also
vice-president of
planning; wasn't he?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Do you think he was worried about the finances
of the company when
he said benzpyrene must go?
A. He was making a scientific judgment, and I don't
believe he was
qualified to do that.
Q. Was the company qualified?
A. I think they would have had to have some scientific
basis for any
judgment in this matter.
Q. Let's assume there was a dispute whether it would
cause lung cancer
in a hundred thousand people or two people. Would that make a difference?
A. I don't know. I -- again, I'd have to examine
the circumstances.
This is a document that is 50 years old -- 40 years old.
Q. Well, sir, how many people would have to die
from it before you
would feel it should be removed?
A. One.
Q. One.
A. If -- if it were the agent responsible.
Q. One human being; correct, sir?
A. If it were the agent responsible.
Q. And if there's carcinogenic compounds in cigarette
smoke that killed
one human being, they should be removed; shouldn't they?
A. If it were the agent identified as being responsible.
Q. And you don't want 100 percent certainty on that;
do you, sir?
A. If it were the agent responsible.
Q. You don't want 100 percent certainty on that;
do you, sir?
A. I would prefer it.
Q. But you don't want that before you would order
it removed.
A. I might -- I --
Now wait a minute. Let's be exact about this. I'm
talking about
scientific precision.
Q. Oh, we talked about that this morning. We talked
about the Henle
Koch postulates; didn't we?
Q. Yes, we did.
Q. Yes. And you wanted to talk about tuberculosis;
didn't you?
A. Yes.
MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, this is getting
argumentative. We're
getting dramatics and --
THE COURT: No, you may answer the question.
Q. You did; didn't you, sir?
A. We discussed it, yes.
Q. And we talked about how Robert Henle's grandson
found that the
Epstein- Barr caused infectious mononucleosis, caused it, and you said
yes,
it did cause it, and it didn't meet one of the Henle Koch postulates;
didn't you? We talked about that.
A. Yes.
Q. And if there is one human being who dies as a
result of lung cancer
based on carcinogens in smoke, they should be removed; shouldn't they,
sir?
A. If it can be proven.
Q. And if the companies made an intentional, voluntary
decision not to
remove them, they should be held accountable; shouldn't they?
*10 MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's argumentative.
THE COURT: You may answer that.
A. I don't know the answer to your question.
Q. Sir --
A. There are too many circumstances here that cloud
the issue.
Q. You just can't answer that because the issue
is clouded; correct?
A. I am --
I don't know.
Q. Do you know what Mr. Lincoln said with regard
to whether they could
prove it or not?
A. I don't know what he said, no.
Q. Let's read on. "This compound must be removed,"
must be removed,
"from Marlboro and Parliament or sharply reduced. We must do this not
because we think it is harmful but simply because those who are in
a better
position to know than ourselves suspect it may be harmful. Other
ingredients that might be harmful must also go, but benzpyrene should
go
first because it is the one that seems to be under most suspicion at
the
moment."
Is that what he wrote, sir?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And he wrote it to the president and vice chairman
of Philip Morris
in 1958; correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And how many children have started smoking since
1958 and died from
lung cancer over those 40 years?
MR. WEBER: Objection, it's argumentative again,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well you may answer if you know.
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know if one has?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now sir, we've seen that Brown & Williamson
in 1952 isolated
benzpyrene. You saw the documents; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know if RJR in 1956 isolated benzpyrene?
A. I don't remember seeing it. I accept that.
Q. Okay. And sir, did the CTR ever state that benzpyrene
had not been
isolated from cigarette smoke by scientists?
A. I have seen a memorandum from Dr. Hockett that
stated that. He was
simply mistaken and did not have the information.
Q. Ah. He stated it on behalf of the CTR; didn't
he?
A. Stated it on behalf of himself.
Q. It was a press release from the CTR; wasn't it?
A. It was his opinion.
Q. But it was a press release from the CTR; wasn't
it, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 14164.
A. I have that.
Q. And that's a 1957, July 15th, for-immediate-release
press release of
the CTR, then called the TIRC; correct, sir?
A. Correct.
Q. And Dr. Hockett was acting on behalf of the TIRC
at that time in
responding to a statement from the United States Surgeon General; wasn't
he?
A. Yes.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 14164.
MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 14164.
BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. And at the top we see "FROM: Hill & Knowlton,
FOR: TOBACCO INDUSTRY
RESEARCH COMMITTEE." Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That's the CTR; right?
A. Yes.
Q. "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE.
"SCIENTIST COMMENTS ON BENZPYRENE REPORT." Correct?
A. That's what's written.
Q. And it states, "The following statement was made
by Dr. Robert C.
Hockett, associate scientific director of the Tobacco Industry Research
Committee, in conjunction with today's news reports from Washington
quoting
the U.S. Surgeon General as saying benzpyrene had been found in cigarette
smoke." Correct?
*11 A. Correct.
Q. Now we know that five years before that Brown
& Williamson had found
benzpyrene; correct?
A. We do from a review of the company memoranda.
Q. And we know from a review of the company memoranda
that over a year
before that RJR Reynolds had isolated benzpyrene; correct?
A. You have shown me those documents.
Q. And Dr. Hockett was the fellow that we saw with
Dr. Little in the
interview on the tape yesterday where they were sitting around the
table
smoking and discussing cancer. Remember that?
A. I remember that.
Q. And how long was he with the CTR?
A. I don't recall, Mr. Ciresi. I think probably
20 years.
Q. Twenty years.
A. Maybe longer.
Q. Did he die of lung cancer?
A. No, sir, I don't think so. But I don't know.
Q. Now he states, "The question of the presence
of benzpyrene in
tobacco smoke has been under investigation for a number of years, and
it
has been widely discounted as a significant factor in connection with
lung
cancer by scientists familiar with the work.
"There are a number of reasons for this.
"Scientists have not actually succeeded in isolating
the substance from
tobacco smoke." That's what he says; right?
A. That's what he says.
Q. He intended --
The TIRC, I should say, CTR, intended people to
rely on that statement;
didn't they?
A. I'm sure Dr. Hockett thought that was -- that
was correct at the
time he made that statement.
Q. And CTR, when it issues press releases, intends
people to rely on
it; doesn't it?
A. Intends --
Q. People to rely on what they say.
A. Well I think any public body does.
Q. And they intended doctors to rely on this; correct?
A. I would assume.
Q. They intended consumers to rely on it; correct?
A. I would assume that.
Q. And it was flat-out false; wasn't it, sir?
A. Well misinformation. Dr. Hockett clearly was
not aware of the fact
that the companies had isolated the substance.
Q. Because the companies didn't tell him; right?
A. Well I don't think the company had any obligation
to tell Dr.
Hockett about this.
Q. The company didn't have any obligation to tell
Dr. Hockett, who was
issuing a press release to the world based on a suggestion of Hill
&
Knowlton, that benzpyrene wasn't in tobacco smoke; is that what you're
saying?
A. I said I didn't -- didn't think the companies
had an obligation to
make Dr. Hockett aware of their internal research.
Q. Who was paying Dr. Hockett?
A. The Council for Tobacco Research.
Q. Who was paying The Council for Tobacco Research?
A. The funds were coming from the tobacco industry.
Q. The industry; correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. These defendants; correct?
A. I don't --
I can't identify the defendants.
Q. The defendants who were supporting the CTR; correct?
A. I guess, yes.
Q. So they didn't have to tell Dr. Hockett what
they knew. He could
make any statement he wanted in blissful ignorance; is that right?
*12 A. No. I think you're overdrawing the case.
Dr. Hockett simply
didn't know, obviously.
Q. Well of course he didn't know because they didn't
tell him; right?
A. And I see nothing evil about that. He -- he --
he simply didn't have
the information.
Q. There's nothing evil about the cigarette companies
hiding whatever
they want in their files and letting the CTR issue press releases;
is that
correct, sir?
MR. WEBER: Object to the argumentative nature and
the dramatics, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: It is argumentative. Sustained.
Q. Sir, is it your testimony that those companies
had no duty to tell
their agents what they knew about an issue that their agents were going
to
issue a press release about? Is that your testimony?
A. Well I'm -- I'm certain the companies didn't
know that Dr. Hockett
was going to issue a press release.
Q. Well do you know if --
A. I'm equally certain that Dr. Hockett was perfectly
honest in his
statement. He simply didn't know.
Q. Did the companies issue a corrective press release
and say, "Oh, no,
we know. We've isolated benzopyrene?"
A. I don't know that.
Q. Have any of the defendants' lawyers provided
you such a document?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know if they provided you that?
A. I don't know. I haven't seen such a document.
Q. Sir, in 1962 you were aware, were you not, that
RJR, for example,
one of the companies who is a defendant in this case --
You know that, don't you, --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that they're one of the defendants?
A. Yes.
Q. Sir, are you aware that in 1962, 36 years ago,
they felt that the
amount of evidence that had accumulated to indict cigarette smoke as
a
health hazard was overwhelming and that the evidence challenging such
an
indictment was scant? Did you know that?
A. I don't know that, but I --
Perfectly reasonable.
Q. Now we talked a little bit about the special
projects. Do you
remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me go back. You say it's perfectly reasonable.
Did R. J.
Reynolds ever state publicly right up to today that the evidence to
indict
cigarette smoking as a health hazard was known by us to be overwhelming
in
1962?
A. I don't know.
Q. You've never seen such a statement; have you?
A. No, sir.
Q. We talked a little bit about special projects
this morning. Now
there were lawyers special projects, as I understand it, and CTR special
projects; correct?
A. Well I don't understand it that way.
Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 21127,
volume two.
A. I have that.
Q. This is one of the documents that we gave notice
we were going to
use with you in your examination. Have you had a chance to look at
it,
doctor?
A. No, sir.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 21127.
MR. WEBER: We'd object to this, Your Honor, for
the reasons we've
explained previously to the court. But in accordance with the court's
order, I assume this will come in.
THE COURT: The court will receive 21127.
*13 BY MR. CIRESI:
Q. Now you see that this is a letter -- and I'm
going to help you out a
little bit because some of it is a little faint, although, doctor,
if you
look on the monitor it might help because we're able to magnify it
a little
bit.
This is a letter on the law firm head of Webster
& Sheffield. Do you
see that?
A. I do.
Q. You know that they were long-time lawyers of
the industry; correct?
A. I don't know that.
Q. You see that this letter is addressed to Joseph
Greer,
vice-president and general counsel of Liggett & Myers?
A. Now that you read it to me I can see that.
Q. Okay. And it's by Francis Decker, Jr., do you
see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And he's enclosing a copy of his notes
which were taken at a
meeting of the Committee of General Counsel, which was held on September
10th, 1981 at Chadbourne & Parke. Do you see that?
A. I see that, yes.
Q. And Chadbourne & Parke is another law firm
that's been a long-time
representative of the industry; correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. Didn't some of their lawyers eventually serve
on the CTR?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Did any of their lawyers ever serve on the CTR?
A. Yes. Ms. Janet Brown, who was counsel to American
Tobacco, was with
Chadbourne & Parke, and she served on the CTR board.
Q. And have you read the memorandum of Janet Brown's
that was
introduced in this case relating to whether or not biological research
would be allowed at American Tobacco in the mid-1960s?
A. I think I've seen that.
Q. Mr. Harlow, you remember, wanted to start up
some biological
research, and after meeting with Ms. Brown he decided not to? Remember
that?
A. I don't remember the content.
Q. Do you remember that the memo was directed to
Mr. Cy Hetsko, who was
the general counsel of American Tobacco?
A. I don't remember.
Q. In this letter from Mr. Decker, then, he attaches
this memo. And
could you go to that, the notes, which are the third page of the Exhibit
21127. And you see this is notice -- "NOTES OF MEETING OF COMMITTEE
OF
GENERAL COUNSEL HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1981." See that?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is the Committee of Counsel; correct,
sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And present were the following general counsel,
Mr. Witt, Mr.
Stevens, Cherry, Newman, and a representative from Brown & Williamson;
correct?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And those are general counsel of the companies
who supported CTR;
correct?
A. Yes. I -- I'm not sure that it is comprehensive,
but yes.
Q. Okay. And the next is a little difficult to make
out, but says,
"Also attending were the following litigating lawyers." Do you see
that?
A. I see it. I'm not sure I can read it.
Q. "Also attending were the following litigating
lawyers," and the very
first name is Brown. That's Janet Brown; correct?
A. I think that's right.
Q. See that?
A. Yes. I -- I don't know, it -- I --
I think it's Brown. Now what Brown it would be,
I don't know.
*14 Q. Now if you go down, you see it starts there
at number one,
"Special Projects." Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's some comments next to the name Jacob.
And he was one of
the litigating lawyers who was in attendance; isn't that correct? The
second name.
A. I guess. I accept that, yes.
Q. And is he there --
He says, "Jacob then defined the special projects
and their origin in
litigating lawyer needs." Do you see that?
A. I can't read it.
Q. "Jacob then defined the special projects and
their origin in
litigating lawyer needs." Do you see the --
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd object to any other questions
on the areas
that he can't read unless there's some better copy somewhere.
THE COURT: No. Well I can read it. Can you read
it, counsel?
MR. WEBER: I can't read this. I can make that out
a little better.
Apparently Dr. Glenn is having a hard time with that screen. That's
my
point. I think he said he couldn't read it.
THE COURT: Well maybe you should read the big screen.
I can read it. Go
ahead.
Q. Can you see that up there, doctor?
A. Yes, it's better on the large screen.
Q. All right. "Jacob then defined the special projects
and their origin
in litigating lawyer needs." Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. "Purposes: 1 - develop witness - stimulate the
interest of doctors.
"2 - develop information re gaps in knowledge."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Then Brown goes on to state as follows --
See her name there?
A. Yes.
Q. "Jacob made a fair statement. Not all these people
make good
witnesses but they are valuable. E.G., Eleanor MacDonald who knows
many
people, has ideas, and is sympathetic. Lawyers cannot testify; we need
people who can."
Then it goes on to Stevens. Now Stevens was the
general counsel at
Lorillard where Dr. Spears was at; correct?
A. That's my belief, yes.
Q. Yes. Then he states as follows: "It is timely
to re-examine the
special projects. Want to make it invulnerable to attack. He is concerned
with degree to which we make advocacy primary and science becomes
secondary. He knows it is difficult to find witnesses. He is concerned
over
the fact that some names appear on the list time and again, such as
Sterling, Furst, Aviado, who will start to lose credibility for themselves
and us. He is concerned about the quality of the science to cultivate
witnesses."
Now, sir, were Sterling, Furst and Aviado doctors
who received money
from the CTR under special projects?
A. I believe they were.
Q. And were they the lawyers special projects or
the CTR special
projects?
A. They were CTR special projects identified by
the sponsor companies.
Q. And if you then --
I'm sorry. May I have that again?
A. They were CTR special projects identified by
the sponsor companies.
Q. And the people who identified them at the sponsor
companies were the
lawyers; correct?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Well let's go on to the next page of these notes
of the general
counsel, and we're going to go down to Stevens, about halfway down.
Do you
see his name?
*15 A. Yes.
Q. "Two other factors that concern me:
"I need to know" -- I'm sorry, let me start over.
"Two other factors that concern me:"
Number one, "I need to know what the historical
reasons were for the
difference between the criteria for lawyers' special projects and CTR
special projects.
"2. I understand that there will be times when we
need to get money
into the hands of a researcher like Janus, but I would rather not create
a
project that does not make any sense, paren, quote, pseudo science,
end of
quote, close
paren."
Now was Janus an individual who received money from
the CTR?
A. I'd have to refer to the list of grantees and
-- and contracts and
special projects. I simply don't remember.
Q. Don't remember.
A. Well this was, as you pointed out, --
Q. 1981, sir.
A. -- twenty seven years ago -- 17 years ago.
Q. Yes. 1981, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And Aviado and Furst and Sterling, they continued
to receive money
from CTR beyond 1981; didn't they?
A. I can't tell you that. I'd have to refer to the
list, but I -- they
were -- they were recipients of funds at one time or another.
Q. They were recipients when you were at CTR.
A. I can't tell you that either.
Q. Just don't remember. And I -- I understand there's
a lot of them,
sir. And if you don't remember, that's fine.
A. I would have to refer to the list.
Q. Okay, fair enough.
Now was CTR, through its special projects, creating
pseudo science?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't think so.
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't.
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. Do you know that others think they were?
A. I don't know that.
Q. It's been reported they were; hasn't it?
A. I have heard this allegation from plaintiffs'
attorneys.
Q. You've heard it from doctors; haven't you?
A. No, sir.
Q. It's been reported in the medical press; hasn't
it?
A. I have not heard it from doctors, no.
Q. Has it been reported in the medical press that
the CTR was nothing
but a front for the tobacco industry?
A. That has been recorded, yes.
Q. It's been reported in the Journal of the American
Medical
Association; hasn't it?
A. Yes. Erroneously.
Q. Erroneously. The journal is a peer-reviewed,
class-one journal;
isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. It is the premier journal of the American Medical
Association; isn't
it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now sir, Jacob then goes on and states as follows:
"When we started
CTR Special Projects" --
Now Jacob, he's a lawyer; right? Isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. He's a lawyer that's from outside the companies.
He's a litigating
lawyer; is that right?
A. He was identified as such in this memorandum.
Q. He's a long-time litigating lawyer for the tobacco
industry; isn't
he?
A. He is identified as such in the -- in the memorandum.
I don't know
about long-time and --
Q. Well you've heard his name over the years; haven't
you, sir?
A. I've heard his name, yes.
*16 Q. Have you met him?
A. No, never met him.
Q. Never met him.
"When we started the CTR Special Projects, the idea
was that the
scientific of C -- scientific director of CTR" --
Now who was the scientific director? You were the
scientific director
at one time; weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let me start over. "When we started the
CTR Special Projects,
the idea was that the scientific director of CTR would review a project.
If
he liked it, it was a CTR special project. If he did not like it, then
it
became a lawyers' special project." Is that right?
A. That's what's written here, yes.
Q. And you found that to be true; didn't you?
A. I didn't find anything to be true. Special projects
had virtually
terminated by the time I joined CTR.
As I understand the process, the scientific director
was called on to
review a proposed special project by the company sponsors.
Q. The company sponsors were again the lawyers;
correct?
A. I don't know that. I'm sure the lawyers participated
in the
decision.
Q. Can you name one scientific person who participated
in that
decision? One?
A. The scientific director of CTR participated by
reviewing the
proposed project. If he thought it had scientific merit, he would tell
the
sponsors this. And I think if he did not find scientific merit, it
probably
reverted back to the -- to the companies, at which point the lawyers
might
decide to proceed unilaterally.
Q. Can you name --
A. In which case it would not be a CTR project.
Q. Can you name one scientific person from the companies
who
participated in this program other than the lawyers?
A. I can't name the lawyers, I can't name the scientific
people, and I
can't name company executives who had participated in it.
Q. Now what happened was they were afraid of discovery
on these
lawyers' projects and they deep-sixed them by trying to claim privilege
over them; isn't that right?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Well let's see what happens. Stevens then says,
"He took offense re
scientific embarrassment to us, but not to CTR." Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then on to the next page, Jacob, "With Spielberger,
we were
afraid of discovery for FTC and with Aviado, we wanted to protect it
under
the lawyers. We did not want it out in the open." Isn't that right,
sir?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And whenever research was done which showed a
cause-and-effect
relationship between cigarette smoking and disease, it was buried with
the
lawyers; wasn't it?
A. I can't extrapolate that statement to your statement.
Q. You just don't know; correct, sir?
A. I don't know.
MR. CIRESI: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Why don't we take a short recess.
(Recess taken.)
THE CLERK: All rise. Court is again in session.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
THE CLERK: Please be seated.
THE COURT: Counsel.
MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor. Before I get started,
with the
court's permission, I just want to warn everyone again about my cold
still
hanging on, so I'll apologize ahead of time if I sneeze or cough in
the
middle of this.
*17 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
(Collective "Good afternoon.")
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Glenn.
Dr. Glenn, you and I met before. My name is Bob
Weber. I represent R.
J. Reynolds in this case. I'm going to ask you a series of questions
this
afternoon, following up some of the issues that Mr. Ciresi has discussed.
How long have you been at CTR, sir?
A. Nearly 11 years.
Q. Now were you at CTR in 1954 when Hill & Knowlton
was involved in its
formation?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where were you in 1954?
A. I was a flight surgeon in the United States Air
Force.
Q. And where were you stationed?
A. In 1954, at Webb Air Force base in Big Springs,
Texas.
Q. Were you at CTR in the late sixties and early
seventies when,
according to some of the memoranda Mr. Ciresi showed you, different
people
in the companies thought CTR should be doing things differently?
A. No, sir.
Q. In the 10 years you've been at CTR, Dr. Glenn,
have lawyers played a
role in selecting what research the SAB funds?
A. No.
Q. In the 10 years you've been at CTR, Dr. Glenn,
have lawyers played a
role in the deliberations of the SAB?
A. No.
Q. In the 10 years you've been at CTR, have tobacco
companies or their
executives played a role in selecting what the Scientific Advisory
Board
decides to research?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or in the Scientific Advisory Board's meetings
or deliberations;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. During your years at CTR has the SAB chosen to
fund or not fund
research for public relations reasons?
MR. CIRESI: Well, Your Honor, I'm going to object.
There's been a
series of leading questions.
THE COURT: Pretty leading, counsel. I think you
better start rephrasing
it.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. In your time at CTR, Dr. Glenn, has the SAB in
its deliberations
taken public relations into account when it funds research?
A. No, sir.
Q. Has it taken legal issues into account?
A. No, sir.
MR. CIRESI: Same -- excuse me, doctor. Same objection,
Your Honor, it's
leading.
THE COURT: It is leading. I'll allow it.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Has the SAB discussed in its meetings whether
company chemists or
other scientists should determine the path of the SAB?
A. No.
Q. Now when you joined the CTR in 1987, did you
believe it necessary or
not -- and explain if you did or didn't -- to review the archives of
the
Hill & Knowlton Company in Wisconsin to help you fulfill your role
at CTR?
A. No.
Q. Dr. Glenn, I'd like you to reach for one of the
exhibit binders that
was the plaintiffs' and look for Exhibit 12581.
A. I have it.
Q. And do you remember that's a document that Mr.
Ciresi asked you some
questions about, a document by a Claude E. Teague?
A. Yes.
Q. And could you read the title of that?
A. It says "SURVEY OF CANCER RESEARCH with emphasis
upon POSSIBLE
CARCINOGENS FROM TOBACCO."
Q. What is a survey article?
A. "Survey" would -- means to me literature review
primarily.
*18 Q. Was this report by Dr. Teague based on anything
other than
published literature?
MR. CIRESI: Objection, Your Honor.
A. I don't --
MR. CIRESI: Excuse me. Pardon me. No foundation.
THE COURT: You have to lay foundation for that.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Is this the document Mr. Ciresi asked you some
questions about
yesterday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Turn to the back of the article -- or of that
exhibit, if you would,
sir.
A. I have it.
Q. And is there a series of three pages or four
pages of bibliographic
notes?
A. Yes. Four pages.
Q. Do those appear to be citations to published
literature or to
internal work product?
A. No, they clearly are citations from the literature.
It gives the
name of the journal, the volume, the year, and the page.
Q. Now if you turn to page -- and I know the numbers
are hard on this
document. Turn to page 12, if you would.
A. I have it.
Q. And do you see at the last sentence of the middle
paragraph, that
last sentence, I think it begins "In 1941...?"
A. I see it.
Q. Could you read that -- those two sentences to
the jury?
A. "In 1941 Roffo," reference number 75, "reported
isolation of a
benzpyrene from a pyrolytic distillate of tobacco. The benzpyrene was
highly carcinogenic in animal tests."
Q. And is that citation to a piece of public literature?
A. It is citation to the public literature.
Q. Could you turn now, Dr. Glenn, to Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 13555. That
may be in that same binder.
A. Yes, I have it. I have it.
Q. And can you identify that as a document that
was represented as a
Brown & Williamson document that you were asked questions about
earlier?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you turn to page nine of that.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And to the heading labeled "CANCER."
A. Yes.
Q. I believe that's focused. Could you start reading
right after
"CANCER?"
A. "This subject is being investigated from a literature
standpoint and
will be reviewed later from a chemical analysis viewpoint.
"A compilation of Dr. Roffo's articles, located
in Chemical Abstracts,
has been made and the conclusion reached that correspondence with him
should be initiated by an independent laboratory not connected with
Brown &
Williamson. Dr. Roffo, incidentally, has apparently devoted his
life to
the study of cancer and has written some 15 papers about his experiments
on
cancer produced in experimental animals by tobacco smoke and tars."
Q. Okay. If you'd stop right there, please. Does
that appear to be the
same Dr. Roffo referenced in the Claude Teague article who reported
in 1941
publicly on the presence of benzpyrene?
A. I think you can make that conclusion.
Q. Now, sir, in the next paragraph it notes that
the B&W lab made a
partial isolation and identification. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Does that sound like a completed and confirmed
experiment?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are experiments that are not completed and confirmed
normally
published in the scientific literature?
*19 A. No, sir.
Q. Turn, if you would, sir, to Plaintiffs' Exhibit
12418.
A. I have it.
Q. And can you identify that as a document that
Mr. Ciresi asked you
some questions about just yet today?
A. Yes.
Q. This was a document authored by Dr. Alan Rodgman
at R. J. Reynolds?
A. Yes.
Q. I apologize for the fact that I've marked on
this, but could you
read that first sentence there under "HISTORICAL" where it discusses
the
public reporting of the presence of benzpyrene.
A. "In 1954 the first report of the presence of
a carcinogenic factor,
parenthesis, cancer-producing, end parenthesis, polycyclic hydrocarbon
3,4-
benzpyrene in cigarette smoke was published."
Q. Now that wouldn't be referring to the Roffo article
in 1941; would
it?
A. I don't think so. I -- this is --
It says clearly "In 1954...."
Q. And then down at the beginning of the last paragraph,
could you read
that first sentence about R. J. Reynolds laboratory corroborating findings
already published.
A. "As described in RDR, 1956, Volume 9, we in the
R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company Research Department corroborated the public -- published
findings with respect to 3,4-benzpyrene, obtained this compound in
crystalline form, and positively identified it as a constituent of
cigarette smoke on the basis of its chemical and physical properties."
Q. Thank you.
Now that was 1959, that reference -- or that memorandum
you just
discussed; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with Dr. Wynder's position with
respect to the
presence of benzpyrene in a period in the, let's say, '55, '56, '57?
A. I'm familiar with it, yes.
Q. Are you familiar with his position on whether
or not there was
enough benzpyrene in the presence of smoke to account for any
carcinogenicity?
A. It was thought not to be present in sufficient
quantities --
MR. CIRESI: Excuse me.
A. -- to be carcinogenic.
MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, Your Honor. There's no foundation.
We need to
know what he's referring to with regard to Dr. Wynder so we can have
that.
THE COURT: Can you lay some foundation for that,
counsel?
MR. WEBER: Let me try it this way, Your Honor.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Could you turn to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 14164,
Dr. Glenn.
A. I have that.
Q. And this was the Dr. Hockett statement about
benzopyrene that Mr.
Ciresi had asked you about?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you look at the paragraph down toward the
bottom. Refers at
the beginning to Dr. Ernst Wynder.
A. I see that.
Q. Could you read that.
A. "Dr. E. L. Wynder of Sloan-Kettering Institute,
a leading proponent
of the cigarette theory of lung cancer, reported only this year that,
quote, The benzpyrene content of tobacco tar is not more than 2 parts
per
million which, according to our experiments, is not sufficient to produce
the type of activity noted in our animals painted with tobacco tar,
unquote."
Q. Now was Dr. Wynder one of the world's leading
researchers with
respect to benzpyrene and mouse skin-painting at that time?
*20 A. Yes.
Q. Do you know, by the way, Dr. Glenn, whether or
not the amount of
benzpyrene in commercial cigarettes has substantially decreased since
those
days?
A. I'm not aware of it. I --
The manufacture and composition of cigarettes is
not within my
expertise.
Q. Dr. Glenn, could you take a look at Exhibit GK3.
MR. WEBER: Do we have a copy of that up there for
Dr. Glenn, or should
I take him one?
May I approach, Your Honor?
It's the 1964 Surgeon General's report. I don't
think it's up here,
doctor.
(Document handed to the
witness.)
MR. WEBER: That's the page I'm going to ask you
to turn to, but look at
the front to identify it.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Do you recognize that as a copy of the 1964 Surgeon
General's
report, Dr. Glenn?
A. I do.
Q. Could you turn to page 144 of that report, sir.
A. I have it.
Q. And you see at the bottom of that page in --
under a heading
"Mechanism?"
A. Yes.
Q. Could you read that second sentence.
A. "Benzo(a)pyrene is present in much larger concentrations
than is any
other carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbon."
Q. And then the next sentence?
A. "The inability to account for the carcinogenicity
of the tobacco
products, except to a very minor degree, by the amount of benzo(a)pyrene
present, was unanticipated."
Q. And do you --
Is that consistent with the statement of Dr. Wynder's
that you just
read?
A. It is.
Q. Dr. Glenn, let me -- you can put that one away.
I think I'm done
with that for now.
Let me turn to another series of questions right
now about who you are
and your life's work and what you've done.
Could you start out, tell the ladies and gentlemen
of the jury where
and when you were born, sir?
A. I was born in Lexington, Kentucky, on May 10th,
1928, which makes me
69 years old, and I feel every year of it. I was educated in grammar
school
and high school in Lexington. I received a scholarship to the University
of
Rochester and completed the undergraduate course in three years with
a
bachelor's degree in general science. I then attended Duke University
Medical School and obtained the M.D. degree, completing the course
in 1952.
I then went to Peter Bent Brigham Hospital of the Harvard system for
my
internship and assistant residency in general surgery. There were --
it was
interrupted for two years by a tour with the United States Air Force,
and
after that military service I went back to Duke and completed my residency
in urologic surgery.
Q. Dr. Glenn, are you married?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many years now?
A. Nearly 50.
Q. And have you and your wife been blessed with
children and
grandchildren?
A. Four children and seven grandchildren.
Q. Any doctors in the group yet?
A. No, not yet. I'm working on the grandchildren.
Q. Dr. Glenn, have you --
You've been practicing as a physician now, you --
for about 46 years,
since you got out of medical school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you've developed an area of specialty since
that -- in the
course of that practice?
*21 A. I am a urologic surgeon.
Q. Do you have any areas of subspecialty as well?
A. Well I've been particularly interested in urologic
malignancies and
in pediatric urology, primarily the congenital malformations in children.
Q. And in -- with respect to urological or -- well
strike that.
With respect to your specialty of urology, have
you also undertaken the
studies of cancer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you've been a grant recipient for studies
of cancer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you receive any honors in medical school,
Dr. Glenn?
A. I was elected to Alpha Omega Alpha, which is
the honorary medical
society. It's the equivalent of Phi Beta Kappa in college.
Q. And have you stayed active in Alpha Omega Alpha
over the years?
A. Yes, I have. I served as the counselor for the
Duke chapter of the
honor society, and then I was elected to the national board of directors
and subsequently elected president of the honor society.
Q. And that was president for the entire United
States?
A. Yes.
Q. Now after you finished your service with the
Air Force, where did
you go next?
A. I went back to Duke and completed my residency
in urology, which I
finished in 1959, and I then took appointment at Yale University in
the
medical school as an assistant professor, stayed there two years, and
was
offered an associate professorship at Lake Forest University Medical
School, accepted that job, and stayed there about a year and a half,
when I
was offered the opportunity to return to Duke as a professor and chairman
of the urology -- urology department.
Q. And you stayed at Duke for 17 years?
A. About 18 years.
Q. Were you chairman that entire period of time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was it that caused you to think of leaving
Duke, Dr. Glenn?
A. Well I'd been there a long time. I thought there
were probably other
challenges. And Emory University approached me and asked if I would
be
interested in being Dean of the Medical School, and I said yes, if
I could
continue to do my practice as well. I felt like I was too young to
give up
surgery. So they agreed to that, and I went to Atlanta.
Emory University is the school that has received
a tremendous amount of
support from the Coca-Cola Company and the people who were the major
stockholders in Coca-Cola, and it has a -- had a very bright future,
which
they are now experiencing, and it was a very enjoyable tour.
Q. And you were Dean of the Medical School?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And professor of urology?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you -- you were both practicing and teaching?
A. Yes.
Q. And researching as well?
A. No, I didn't do any active research during that
interval because of
the administrative burdens of the dean's office.
Q. Now you went from Emory up to the Mount Sinai
Hospital system in New
York; correct?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Could you describe that system and the duties
and responsibilities
you had there, sir.
A. I was president of the medical center and also
president of the
hospital and the medical school. There are three separate entities.
The
hospital is a 1200-bed hospital. My principal contribution there was
construction of a new hospital, and it was a lot of fun.
*22 The medical school has an annual budget of about
-- then about 150
million dollars a year, and the hospital an annual budget of about
350
million dollars a year, so the sheer magnitude of it would tell you
that I
most certainly had a lot of help.
Q. Did you practice medicine while you were at Mount
Sinai?
A. I did.
Q. And did you continue to teach while you were
at Mount Sinai?
A. Yes.
Q. Now Mr. Ciresi asked you some questions yesterday
about a dispute
with the board of directors of Mount Sinai about a transplant that
was
performed. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you want to explain that situation?
A. Well, at that time there was a law in the state
of New York, which
was not known to our heart surgeons, unfortunately, that said that
they
could not accomplish a heart transplant without approval of the
Commissioner of Health.
They admitted a patient, who was indigent. I was
called by the director
of the hospital saying what should we do about this patient, one of
our
sister hospitals wants to transfer this man because they don't have
the
capacity to take care of him. He was 34 years old and in profound heart
failure from a condition called --
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor --
A. -- cardiomyopathy.
MR. CIRESI: Excuse me. I'm going to object to the
history of the
patient. There's no foundation for this.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, he's familiar with the situation,
and it was
raised by Mr. Ciresi about this circumstance. He should be able to
explain
it.
MR. CIRESI: Well, Your Honor, the medical condition,
if we're going to
get into that, we will get into his medical condition, whether it was
acute
or not. But there's no records here of this gentleman.
THE COURT: Okay. Are we going to get into the specific
condition of the
patient here?
MR. WEBER: I think all I want --
THE COURT: Don't we have anything else to do today?
MR. WEBER: All I want to do is have Dr. Glenn to
give a complete
description. He was involved.
THE COURT: Why don't we try and keep it relatively
brief, okay?
MR. WEBER: Okay.
A. At any rate, the patient was failing, and our
surgeon determined to
transplant a heart. Immediately -- I was on vacation -- I was called
and
advised of this. I returned to New York. The surgeons had not realized
that
they had -- had violated any regulations. Patient did well.
The commissioner was angered by this and threatened
our board of
trustees with personal liability. And I said this is not a -- not a
trustee
matter, this is a medical matter, let's take care of the patient first.
The
trustees asked me to --
MR. CIRESI: Well, Your Honor, we're getting into
hearsay here, and I'm
going to object to the hearsay.
THE WITNESS: This is not hearsay. I was there.
MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, sir.
MR. WEBER: Wait, wait just a minute, Dr. Glenn.
MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, sir.
THE COURT: Yeah. Dr. Glenn, I'd prefer to make the
ruling on hearsay,
if you'll permit me.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
*23 THE COURT: Thank you.
Objection sustained.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Were you asked --
Did the dispute at Mount -- at Mount Sinai that
eventually led to your
dissociation with Mount Sinai relate to your refusal to discipline
the
surgeons?
A. Yes.
Q. Now you've been involved in a number of professional
organizations
over the years as well; haven't you, Dr. Glenn?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I'd like to go through a few of those with you
now, and a few of
your other activities outside of academic medicine. Let me start with
your
-- first of all, with your role as a consultant for the Agency for
International Development in the Viet Nam medical school project under
the
AMA. Could you describe that?
A. The AMA and the U.S. State Department with its
Agency for
International Development sponsored a medical school in Saigon to try
to
train Vietnamese physicians to take care of their own problems, and
I was
asked to go there as a urologic consultant. I made four trips to Viet
Nam
during that interval. I also consulted with the Army medical facilities
during that same time.
Q. Were you a consultant to the Surgeon General
of the Army and the Air
Force?
A. I was consultant specifically to the Surgeon
General of the Air
Force, primarily with oversight of the Air Force residency training
program
in urology at the Wilford Hall Hospital in San Antonio.
Q. Are you a member of the American Association
of Genitourinary
Surgeons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have your peers in that group entrusted you
with any positions
of responsibility over the years?
A. I was elected president of the American association.
Q. Are you a fellow of the American College of Surgeons?
A. I am.
Q. Were you involved and have you been involved
in the American Joint
Committee on Cancer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you describe that for the ladies and gentlemen
of the jury.
A. The American Joint Committee on Cancer is a part
of the
International Commission Against Cancer, and it is a body that attempts
to
classify and codify malignant disease so that we are all talking about
the
same apples and oranges. It is not a research activity as much as it
is a
repository for nomenclature dealing with cancer. And we've -- we've
made a
lot of progress in the last 20, 30 years so that we all know what we're
talking about when we start talking about malignant disease.
Q. Are you a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics,
doctor?
A. I am.
Q. Are you a member of the Clinical Society of Genitourinary
Surgeons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And has that group ever entrusted you with any
positions of
responsibility?
A. I am --
I was president of that organization.
Q. Were you a member -- strike that.
Are you a member of the Society for Pediatric Urology,
doctor?
A. Yes, and I was president of that society.
Q. Are you a member of the Society of Pelvic Surgeons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have you had positions of responsibility
in that group?
*24 A. Yes, sir. I was president of that group.
Q. Are you a member of the Society of University
Urologists, doctor?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you had a position of responsibility given
to you by your peers
in that group?
A. I was the first secretary, and then I was president.
Q. Now are you involved in international professional
organizations as
well, Dr. Glenn?
A. Yes. I think the principal one would be the International
Society of
Urology, and I have served for three years as president of that
organization.
Q. Are you members --
Are you a member of the German and the Japanese
urological associations
as well?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you a member of the AustroAsian Urological
Society?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the Canadian Urological Society?
A. That sounds like a lot of --
Those are honorary memberships, and I don't have
any responsibilities.
Q. Have you been given an honor by the Medical Association
in the
United Kingdom in Great Britain?
A. Yes. I was the first urologist elected to honorary
fellowship in the
Royal College of Surgeons, and it's a very distinct honor.
Q. How many physicians in the United States have
been given membership
in the Royal College of Surgeons?
A. I think over the years there have been 35, maybe
40.
Q. Now, sir, have you also served as a -- on the
editorial board of
various medical journals?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Urology Digest?
A. Yes.
Q. Urological Survey?
A. Yes.
Q. Several others?
A. Several others.
Q. Have you, during the course of your 46 years
as a physician, Dr.
Glenn, also published the results of your research?
A. Yes, and -- and clinical activities and operative
procedures.
Q. How many --
How many articles or publications or abstracts have
you published in
the peer-review literature?
A. Something over 250, with five textbooks.
Q. And book chapters as well in other books?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you received grants for your research from
the National
Institute of Health, doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe some of the work you've done
in that area.
A. Well I've --
While at Duke, we enjoyed the first training grant
for academic
urologists. This offered us an opportunity to fund fellowships for
young
men who had indicated an interest in a career in academic medicine.
We
could take them into the laboratory for a year or two of basic research
experience and then continue with their clinical training.
This was a very fruitful program. Overall over the
years I had 15 such
fellows, and of those, 12 are still in academic medicine. The chairman
of
the department of urology at the University of Chicago, the chairman
of the
University of California in Davis, the chairman of pediatric urology
at
Mayo Clinic, the chairman of urology at Baylor, and the chairman of
urology
at the National Cancer Institute was one of our trainees. So that NIH
money, I think, came back to them in spades.
Q. Doctor, as professor, department chair, dean,
president of these
various hospitals and departments, have you also been involved in cancer
research over the years?
*25 A. Yes. We -- our laboratory program was devoted
to various aspects
of cancer, most prominently the effort -- the early efforts to culture
cancer cells in -- in tissue culture, and we made some minor breakthroughs
in this area, were able to replicate cells.
Once a cancer cell is established, particularly
urologic cancers --
bladder is the -- is a real difficult problem still. Kidney cancer,
we're
doing pretty well with that, prostate cancer pretty well. Bladder cancer
is
still bad, and it is associated with -- with smoking, and we tell the
patients who have bladder cancer that they should certainly stop smoking.
Bladder cancer cells, though, were very difficult
to -- to grow in
culture until one of our fellows devised a new technique, and we're
now --
they are now able to replicate generation after generation. We've got
bladder cancer cells that date back to 1973 or '4. So that was a definite
step forward.
The other -- other activities of cancer, I -- following
my retirement
in New York I moved back to my home in Kentucky, and the university
gave me
a professorship and said I could do whatever I wanted to do -- that
didn't
last very long -- and one of the things they'd asked me to do since
returning was serve as interim director of the Markey Cancer Center
there
at the University of Kentucky, and I did that for three and a half
years.
That was coincident with the appointment with CTR. But it gave me a
real
on-line insight into what was happening in cancer research in this
country.
We were able to foster some good young people, get them started in
their
research work. And I think it gave me a broader overview of -- of cancer
research in general than I would have had otherwise.
Q. Now in 1987, when you began to become involved
with the Council for
Tobacco Research, that was also when you moved back to Kentucky?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've been essentially holding two jobs
since then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how much time a week do you spend on CTR-related
activities,
other than a week like this, Dr. Glenn?
A. About half my time, two to three days a week.
Q. And the remainder of your time is spent at the
University of
Kentucky?
A. Yes.
Q. Now in addition to being the director of the
University of
Kentucky's Markey Cancer Center, you've had other responsibilities
at the
University of Kentucky Medical School in your time there; have you
not?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you outline some of those for us, doctor.
A. They were in a search for a chief of staff of
the University
Hospital and asked me to serve as interim director there. I did that
for
about a year and a half. I served as Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs,
meaning the clinical activities of medicine. And for one year I was
the
acting chairman of the Department of Surgery while they searched for
a new
chairman.
Q. And you're still practicing and still teaching
at the University of
Kentucky Medical School?
A. Yes.
Q. Now -- by the way, in January 1954 --
*26 You were asked some questions about the Frank
Statement that was
published. You remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. In January --
Did you see the Frank Statement in January '54?
A. No, sir.
Q. Had you ever heard -- when --
Let me ask this: When was the first time you ever
heard about the Frank
Statement?
A. After I joined CTR.
Q. And how did you first hear about it?
A. I've forgotten, Mr. Weber. I suppose from a member
of the staff, but
I'm really vague about it. But I was ultimately shown a copy of the
Frank
Statement.
Q. Now from January 1954, when the Frank Statement
was published, until
you joined CTR in 1987, had you ever heard anybody anywhere at any
time say
anything about the Frank Statement?
A. No, sir.
MR. CIRESI: Objection -- excuse me, sir. Objection,
calls for hearsay,
Your Honor.
MR. WEBER: Calls for -- I'm sorry?
THE COURT: He said it calls for hearsay. Objection
sustained.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Let's turn now to your time at CTR. All right,
Dr. Glenn? To your --
and let's -- let's touch on a couple things that CTR doesn't do.
Has CTR ever sold cigarettes, to your knowledge?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or manufactured cigarettes?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or been in the business of developing commercial
products for
cigarettes?
A. No, sir.
Q. Does CTR own or operate its own research laboratories?
A. No, sir.
Q. Has it ever done so, to your knowledge?
A. No.
Q. When you came to CTR, Dr. Glenn, did you conduct
any investigation
of documents that might be possessed by sponsor companies from 30,
40 years
earlier?
A. No.
Q. Did you think that such an investigation would
in any way be
necessary to the research activities you'd been asked to undertake?
A. No.
Q. Could you turn to tab one, Dr. Glenn, of your
notebook.
MR. WEBER: Not yet, Liza.
Q. Do you have it, Dr. Glenn?
A. I do.
MR. WEBER: That is Exhibit 1208.
MR. CIRESI: 1208?
MR. WEBER: Yes, sir.
MR. CIRESI: Thank you.
MR. WEBER: I'll wait just a moment to ask you a
question here, Dr.
Glenn.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Now will that demonstrative chart assist you
in describing how CTR
operates?
A. Yes. I think that's a fairly accurate reflection
of the -- of the
structure and function.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of
Exhibit 1208 for
demonstrative purposes.
MR. CIRESI: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 1208 for demonstrative
purposes.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Now let's start on the left of that chart, Dr.
Glenn, where it shows
from the tobacco companies money coming in to CTR. I think you've already
described how they fund CTR when you spoke with Mr. Ciresi; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now the first group designated there is the CTR
board of directors.
Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now is --
And then the next group over is the Scientific Advisory
Board; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The board of directors, is that different from
the Scientific
Advisory Board?
*27 A. Oh, it's totally separate.
Q. Who --
A. Board of directors is made up of two representatives
from each of
the sponsor tobacco companies, and I serve as the chairman of that
board.
It is an administrative board. It approves the budget for operations
and
for research grants and it approves business matters that are relative
to
CTR, but it is not involved in the scientific activities.
The SAB, the Scientific Advisory Board --
Q. Hang on just a second. I want to ask you another
question, if I
might, on the -- on the board of directors.
The board of directors is made up of people from
the sponsor companies?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Apart from yourself, are -- are the board of
directors members
normally scientists or business people?
A. They're business people.
Q. Do they --
Does the board of directors determine the substance
and direction of
the research that's conducted by CTR?
A. No, sir.
MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, doctor, please. When I rise,
I'm going to make
an objection.
Objection, Your Honor, it's leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: You may answer. It's been answered.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Now let -- let's go to the far right side of
the chart for a minute,
if I could, doctor, to the scientific director and scientific staff.
Do you
see that?
A. I do.
Q. Now you served as the scientific director for
a period of time; did
you not?
A. I did, from 1988 to 1991.
Q. Then just so the ladies and gentlemen of the
jury get the chronology
right, you first became affiliated with CTR in 1987?
A. In the spring of 1987 as a member of the -- of
the Scientific
Advisory Board.
Q. And had you had any contact or relation or business
dealings with
the CTR before that?
A. No.
Q. Then from 1988 to 1991 you served as scientific
director.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then what happened from then on, doctor?
A. In 1991 I was asked to serve as chairman of the
board and chief
executive officer.
Q. And when you say "chairman of the board," that's
chairman of the
board of directors?
A. Correct.
Q. And at that time did you give up your role as
member of the
Scientific Advisory Board?
A. I did.
Q. And at some point did you become president of
CTR?
A. I did two years later, 1993. When our president
retired, I took that
responsibility as well.
Q. Now are you a member at this time formally of
the Scientific
Advisory Board?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you attend their meetings?
A. I do.
Q. Do you have a formal vote?
A. No, sir.
Q. How many employees does CTR have?
A. Currently there are 12.
Q. And are --
Could you divide those between professional employees
and staff
employees?
A. Yes. Well of course I'm a physician. Our scientific
director, Dr.
Harmon McAllister, is a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He has two associate
scientific directors, one has a degree in neurophysiology and the other
has
a degree in microbiology, and they assist him in the grant process.
The
other staff is clerical. We have a woman who serves as secretary and
treasurer of the organization. There are three secretaries, one librarian
and one office boy. I believe that I've named everybody.
*28 Q. Could you turn to tab --
Well before I ask you that, are you familiar with
the persons who
preceded you, came before you as scientific director of the CTR?
A. Yes. Dr. Sheldon --
Q. I just want to know if you're familiar with them
now.
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And are you familiar with their reputations in
the scientific
community?
A. Yes.
Q. And with their backgrounds?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you turn to tab two, which is Exhibit 1917.
A. I have that.
Q. And is that a demonstrative exhibit displaying
some of the
background of former scientific directors?
A. Yes, it does.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of
Exhibit 1917.
MR. CIRESI: For demonstrative purposes?
MR. WEBER: For demonstrative purposes.
MR. CIRESI: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 1917 for demonstrative
purposes.
MR. WEBER: Can we get that a little better? Well,
maybe not.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Dr. Glenn, taking a look at Exhibit 1917, could
you start on the
left- hand side. Was Dr. Clarence Cook Little the first scientific
director?
A. He was.
Q. And then it goes along the right to you yourself;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. We had a chance to talk to the jury about your
background. Could you
start with Dr. Little and then move across and advise the jury about
the
background of these scientists who've served as scientific director
at The
Council for Tobacco Research?
A. Yes. Dr. Clarence Little's various accomplishments
are listed there.
He was president of two universities, as you see. He was the first
director
of what became the American Cancer Society, president of the American
Association for Cancer Research, but I think probably Dr. Little's
greatest
distinction was he started the Jackson Memorial laboratory in Bar Harbor,
Maine, and that was the institution that developed the first strain
of
inbred mice. And the significance of that is that this was the first
time
that we were able to replicate laboratory results without the extraneous
factors of comparing different breeds. In other words, these mice were
literally all alike, so the results that you got in experimentation
were
much more consistent, much more uniform. Probably one of the really
significant scientific contributions of this century.
Q. Dr. Glenn, I may have missed it. What was Dr.
Little's scientific
background? What --
Did he have an area of specialization?
A. He was a geneticist primarily, but his -- his
interest in genetics
had focused on cancer, and that's why he had such broad-ranging activity
in
the field of cancer.
Dr. Gardner was chairman of the anatomy department
at Yale Medical
School, but he, too, was very active in the cancer area. You see the
second
item there, president of the International Union Against Cancer, that's
what we were talking about earlier when I -- when we talked about the
American Joint Committee on Cancer. That is a -- a segment of this
international thing. Dr. Gardner had an international reputation for
cancer
research which he had accomplished at Yale.
*29 Dr. Sommers was for many years director of pathology
at the Lenox
Hill Hospital and held a professorship at Columbia Presbyterian College
of
Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Sommers' major contributions were in the
area
of lung pathology. He was considered one of the world's authorities
on lung
cancer.
Q. Dr. Glenn, let me interrupt you there before
you go any more with
Dr. Sommers. Could you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury
what
"pathology" is and what a pathologist does. That is, Dr. Sommers was
a
pathologist; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you just explain that area of practice
and specialty?
A. A pathologist is a physician who devotes his
efforts to the analysis
of body substances, tissues, fluids. The pathologist is usually the
final
word in what -- what's wrong with somebody. A pathologist is the linchpin,
I suppose, of the practice of medicine, so he becomes a very important
member of the team. The patient never sees him, but the doctors all
rely on
him.
Q. Now could we go back to the prior exhibit just
for a moment, which
was 1208. Now we talked about the board of directors.
Do you need some water, doctor? Are you okay?
A. Yes. No, I'm fine.
Q. We talked about the board of directors and now
the staff and
scientific directors over the period since 1954 to present. I want
to focus
on the center square there, the Scientific Advisory Board. All right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you describe what the general function
of the Scientific
Advisory Board has been.
A. Well the Scientific Advisory Board is extremely
focused. They --
they focus on review of grant applications and make the determination
of
the relative merit of these grant proposals and advise us on which
projects
should be funded. By intention, the Scientific Advisory Board has been
made
up of many disciplines, many different types of physicians and scientists
in order to get as broad a view of medical research as possible.
In the beginning, I believe I remember that there
were nine members of
the Scientific Advisory Board. It's grown now, and currently there
are 15
members of the Scientific Advisory Board, representing most of the
areas of
current medical research.
Q. Are members of the Scientific Advisory Board
employees of tobacco
companies or affiliated with tobacco companies?
A. No, sir, none of them have any affiliation.
Q. What -- what types of affiliations do they have?
Do they -- do they
-- do they retain their affiliations at other institutions?
A. Oh, yes. These people are all active faculty
members in medical
schools or staff members in cancer research institutions, that sort
of
thing. We have in the past had members of the Scientific Advisory Board
who
were on the staff of the National Cancer Institute, for example.
Q. How are members of the Scientific Advisory Board
selected, Dr.
Glenn?
A. Well it's an informal process. Since I've been
there I have asked
the -- the members -- the existing members of the board to identify
candidates who might be appropriate members, and they in turn will
surface
names in various disciplines. We try to look at areas where we -- we
need
further expertise. So the -- the SAB itself generates some names of
candidates. We usually invite these people to come and join us in one
of
our grant review sessions just to see how the chemistry works. And
if
someone is attractive to the Scientific Advisory Board, I then issue
the
invitation to join.
*30 We've turned over the board about 50 percent
in the last six or
seven years.
Q. Could you turn, Dr. Glenn, to tab three, which
is Exhibit 1229.
A. I have it.
Q. And can you describe what that is.
A. This is a list of the --
Q. Just briefly.
A. This is a list of the members of the Scientific
Advisory Board of
CTR in 1994.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of
Exhibit 1229 for
demonstrative purposes.
MR. CIRESI: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 1229 for demonstrative
purposes.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. May be more easily readable on the side screen.
I hope it is clear
up here as well.
Doctor, could you go through and describe the members
of the Scientific
Advisory Board in 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. And give -- give us a brief comment on the field
of expertise or
specialization each member has.
A. Dr. Joseph Feldman was chairman of the board
in 1994. His area of
expertise was in immunology. He was trained as a pathologist, but he
became
interested in experimental immunology, which is pretty fundamental
to the
cancer area.
Dr. Barry Pierce also was trained as a pathologist.
His interest was in
tumorigenesis, the formation of tumors. Dr. Pierce serves now as the
chairman of the board.
Dr. Leo Abood, who has been mentioned here previously,
was professor of
pharmacology and biochemistry at the University of Rochester. His main
area
of interest and life-long research was in the field of nicotine receptors.
And I think that probably begs a little identification.
In the human nervous system there are two types
of receptor cells that
--
MR. CIRESI: Excuse me.
A. -- receive the signal that make muscles function.
MR. WEBER: Hold on just a second.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this.
He has not been
qualified as an expert in the area, nor designated.
THE COURT: I think we should move on.
MR. WEBER: I was just going to have him explain,
but we can go on.
Q. Let's just go on to the next member, Dr. Glenn.
A. Dr. Barry Arneson is chairman of the department
of neurology and
director of the Brain Institute at the University of Chicago.
Dr. Drummond Bowden is a pulmonary pathologist,
lung pathologist from
Canada.
Dr. Michael Brennan is the former director of the
Michigan Cancer
Center, and he is a physician who practices in the -- in the area of
medical oncology, the treatment of cancer.
Dr. Raymond Erickson is a molecular biologist. He
studies biology at a
very fundamental level at Harvard.
Dr. Gordon Gill is a physician who is trained in
endocrinology, but his
research work has been primarily in the area -- area of tumor metabolism.
Doctor --
Q. Dr. Glenn, just briefly what is endocrinology?
A. The study of the endocrine organs. The endocrine
organs include the
thyroid, the adrenal glands, other glands.
Dr. W. K. Joklik, chairman of the department of
microbiology at Duke,
his primary interest is in viruses and the potential of cancer formation
by
viruses.
*31 Dr. Manfred Karnovsky is a professor of biochemistry
at Harvard. He
is now retired. He is a basic biological chemist.
Dr. Alfred Knudson, former director of the Fox Chase
Cancer Center. Fox
Chase is a semi-independent cancer institute like Memorial Sloan-Kettering
in New York or like the M. D. Anderson in Houston. Dr. Knudson was
the man
who identified the two-hit theory for development of cancer; there
must be
a cascade of events. He is a candidate for the Nobel Prize for that
particular discovery.
Dr. Henry Lynch is an internist who directs the
Familial Cancer Program
at Creighton University. Dr. Lynch has the largest collection of family
cancers in the world, and it was Dr. Lynch's collection that led to
the
identification of the gene that causes familial colon cancer. You may
have
read about this in the paper within the last year. People at Johns
Hopkins
used Dr. Lynch's material to identify this particular gene.
Dr. McAllister is our scientific director. As I
told you, he's a
biochemist.
Dr. Gordon Sato, now retired from the board, was
the director of the W.
Alton Jones Cell Science Center at Lake Placid. Dr. Sato was one of
the
real pioneers in molecular biology.
Dr. Judith Swain is distinguished as a cardiovascular
physician. She is
trained as a basic investigator as well as a clinician, and since this
time
she has been appointed chairman of the department of medicine at Stanford
University.
And Dr. Peter Vogt, former chairman of microbiology
at the University
of Southern California, is now at the Scripps Research Institute at
La
Jolla. And Dr. Vogt was one of the earliest people to identify the
oncogenes, the cancer- causing genes.
Q. Thank you, doctor.
I want to discuss in some more detail later the
grant review process
with the SAB, but right now I'd like you to focus briefly and describe
just
the general workings of an SAB meeting with these scientists, and --
and
just the general structure of it, if you would.
A. Well the grant applications are -- are allocated
to these various
members. We try to get two or three members of the Scientific Advisory
Board to do an in-depth review of each grant, each application. However,
the applications are sent to all members of the board. This is done
twice a
year at six-month cycles.
The grant applications are reviewed and the -- the
Scientific Advisory
Board then meets in New York at our headquarters twice a year for a
three-day meeting to go over all of these grant applications. And each
cycle there will be something of the magnitude of 150 to 200 grant
applications to be reviewed, so it's a very intensive effort.
The two or three primary reviewers give their written
summary, and
that's circulated to all members of the Scientific Advisory Board.
The
floor is then open to discussion of each grant. When the discussion
is
exhausted, the chairman calls for a vote, and the Scientific Advisory
Board
members vote on each grant in exactly the same way that it's done at
the
National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute. That
is a
scoring system of one to five where one is the best score you can possibly
get -- and it rarely happens -- and five is the poorest score you can
get.
Those votes are tallied. The average is -- is achieved, and that --
that
constitutes the ranking, the rating of the grant applications.
*32 We then fund those that we can fund. We fund
the top group as
selected by this competitive process.
Q. Does the SAB keep formal minutes of its actions?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And has -- has it done that over the years?
A. Yes, sir, since the beginning.
Q. And have you collected and reviewed those?
A. I have.
Q. Could you turn -- I think the binder is labeled
MD001258. Is there
such a binder?
A. Yes, there's two volumes here, and these are
the SAB minutes that
date back to the inception of The Council for Tobacco Research.
MR. WEBER: Do you have that number, Mr. Ciresi?
MD001258.
MR. CIRESI: I have the number. I'm looking for it.
MR. WEBER: It may be in a separate -- it's a big,
thick one. I don't
know if you've got it.
MR. CIRESI: I have it. Thank you.
MR. WEBER: Okay.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Now, is that which has been marked as MD001258
the minutes of the
Scientific Advisory Board over the period of the CTR?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of
the minutes of the
Scientific Advisory Board at this time.
MR. CIRESI: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive MD001258.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Dr. Glenn, if you wouldn't mind just finding
one set of minutes in
there, and it may be during a period when you were affiliated with
CTR, and
just, again, a brief overview of the types of issues that were before
the
Scientific Advisory Board.
A. Well I can turn here to the minutes of the meeting
of the Scientific
Advisory Board, March 30-31, April 1 and 2.
Q. What year?
A. In 1993.
Q. 1993. And can you give us a page number?
A. Page number is 939.
MR. CIRESI: Is that the last three Bates numbers,
doctor?
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry?
MR. WEBER: Is that the last three Bates numbers,
or --
MR. WEBER: May I approach?
THE WITNESS: The last three Bates numbers are 912.
CTR minutes, SAB
000912. Page number is 939.
MR. CIRESI: It's not part of the exhibit. Goes up
to 523.
MR. WEBER: It might be in another -- it's two volumes,
I think.
Are you all set, Mr. Ciresi?
MR. CIRESI: I have it. Thank you, doctor.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Doctor, again without going through the entire
set of actions
because it's a long list of grants and reviews, could you just give
the
ladies and gentlemen of the jury a brief overview of the activity of
the
Scientific Advisory Board at this meeting in 1993.
A. Well the minutes record the attendance and participation
of the SAB
members and staff members who were present. A report of the Scientific
Advisory Board held the previous September was approved. And then we
go to
administrative actions, and this deals with allocation of funds for
existing grants. For example, several investigators didn't expend all
of
their research funds, and those are returned, so we acknowledge the
return
of the uncommitted balance of $133.49 from Dr. Axelrod, for example,
and so
on.
We also approve the transfer of funds from one grant
category to
another. You know, in a grant application there is a category for
personnel; that is, salaries, category for equipment, category for
publication costs and travel, category for equipment purchase -- purchases,
and many times an investigator halfway through a grant period will
determine that what he really needs is a new microscope, and he asks
for
transfer of funds from -- from animal expenses to equipment. And --
and
almost universally the Scientific Advisory Board will approve that.
So
there are one, two, three, four pages of administrative actions of
that
sort.
*33 The next thing is the approval of renewal applications.
Most of the
grants that we've awarded are for an interval of three years. Some
are for
two years, some are for one, but most of them are for three years.
And it
is implicit in our original award that as long as there's satisfactory
progress with the -- with the grant, we will renew for the second and
third
year. So these renewal applications are for the second and third year
of a
three-year grant award, and there are two pages of those. In other
words,
those are existing grants that are being renewed for another year,
because
we renew -- we approve them on a year-to-year basis.
The fourth item are the new and continuing applications.
These are --
these are applicants who have had, say, a three-year cycle and come
back to
us for a -- a renewal of the three-year cycle. And we -- if the work
has
been good, we will generally continue them for another three-year interval.
There are two and a half pages of those grants. And the amount of the
award
is listed there. And I would tell you that our average award is something
like 80 or 85 thousand dollars a year. So they're not huge grants,
but they
are very good grants, especially for young people who are just getting
their -- their feet wet.
The fifth item in the -- in the administrative action
deals with --
deals with the funding of continuation applications that were approved
but
not funded previously.
The next item is an announcement simply of how much
we have to allocate
for the current interval.
And the final item is just a report on grants that
have been funded.
Q. And how long did that meeting take that you're
referring to?
A. Those meetings --
In 1993 we were meeting for four days. This -- this
part of the meeting
is done fairly expeditiously. The -- the information that is contained
here
is circulated to all members of the SAB ahead of time, so they're aware
of
the magnitude of the grants. Occasionally one of them will question
the
amount of an award, and that's then discussed. But in general, this
-- this
is just information purposes for them.
Q. Now Dr. Glenn, in the time you've been at the
CTR and affiliated
with it, have you familiarized yourself with the former members of
the
Scientific Advisory Board who preceded you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are you familiar with their reputation for
research in the
biomedical community?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you turn to demonstrative Exhibit 1219
and then to 1881,
because those two -- despite the numbers, those two do comprise one
process.
A. What tab is that, Mr. Weber?
Q. I'm sorry, tab six for 1219, tab seven for 1881.
A. I have tab six.
Q. And could you take a look at tab seven as well,
which is 1881.
A. And I have tab seven.
Q. And let me ask you: Are those two lists that
were prepared of the
members of the Scientific Advisory Board over time?
A. Yes, they are.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move into evidence Exhibits
1219 and 1881
for demonstrative purposes.
*34 MR. CIRESI: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 1219 and 1881 for
demonstrative purposes.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Let's start with 1219.
A. Okay.
Q. Did you just have an accident with one of the
binders?
A. I just have more paper over here than I can handle.
Q. I apologize.
We're going to speak in a little more detail about
some of the SAB
numbers a little later, doctor, but this is the first part of a chart
beginning 1954 of SAB members; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, we'll speak about some of these individuals
later. Could
you just comment on the general scope of expertise and institutions
they've
been affiliated with, just quickly on this one, then we'll go to the
next
one, which brings us up to date.
A. Well I think that the jury is going to appreciate
that fine
institutions that are represented here. These people are from all different
disciplines. We've talked about a few of them. Many of these in the
early
days I did not know, but beginning here with Dr. Richard Bing in about
the
middle of the list, I've known most of the ones since that time. They
represent a broad section of expertise, and we can go into that
subsequently as we look at individual members.
Q. All right. Could you take a look now at Exhibit
1881, please, which
should come up next. That's at tab seven.
A. Yes. At the top of this list you'll see Dr. Lee
Wattenburg, who is a
very distinguished investigator here at the University of Minnesota.
Other
names you will recognize from the list of current members in 1994.
These
people represent a very broad cross-section of interests and -- and
expertise. I think -- I think the impressive thing to me is that CTR
has
been able to recruit/attract people from the best institutions in the
country.
Q. Dr. Glenn, could you turn to tab five in your
binder.
A. I have that.
MR. WEBER: Oh, this is on that list I gave you.
Excuse me, Your Honor.
May I approach?
(Document handed to the
court.)
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, what that is is a list of
exhibit numbers under
that one tab.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Dr. Glenn, under tab five, do you have collected
there the
curriculum vitae or resumes of the SAB members over the years?
A. Yes.
Q. Were these collected by the CTR in the regular
course of business?
A. Yes. And periodically updated.
Q. And does CTR maintain these as part of its files?
A. We do.
MR. WEBER: All right, Your Honor, I'd like to move
into admission at
this time the CVs of the SAB members on the list that I provided to
the
court and to Mr. Ciresi. I'm prepared to read through that whole list
should the court wish me to, or -- or we could deal with it off this
piece
of paper.
MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we just received this right
before the direct
examination started. I would suggest, for brevity's sake, that maybe
we put
an exhibit sticker on this, and we'll just verify that these exhibits
are
correct, and that will save us all a lot of time.
*35 THE COURT: Can you just mark this --
MR. CIRESI: We have no objection.
THE COURT: -- as an exhibit?
MR. WEBER: Okay.
THE COURT: The list itself?
MR. WEBER: I'm sorry, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Can we just mark the list itself as an
exhibit and then
introduce that so we don't have to go through it all?
MR. WEBER: All right. But -- the actual CVs will
be going in, but we
don't need to read them?
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. WEBER: Thank you.
Are there any trial exhibit numbers that have been
used yet that I need
to worry about? How about twenties, since today is the 20th?
MR. CIRESI: Why don't -- maybe you could use your
numbers, which start,
I believe, at -- what is it, 50,000? Yeah, at 50,000, and so you could
just
put any number on you want after that.
MR. WEBER: 50001. Okay, thank you.
MR. CIRESI: I hope you don't have another 50001,
counsel.
THE COURT: Can you give that to the clerk after
it's marked then.
MR. WEBER: He's got a copy from before, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Fine.
MR. WEBER: So we would move the admission of Trial
Exhibit 50001, which
has been marked. It consists of a list of the actual exhibit numbers
for
the resumes and CVs of the SAB members.
MR. CIRESI: And there's no objection, Your Honor.
We'll check those
against the exhibit numbers on here for the court.
THE COURT: Okay. And the number is scary, but we'll
introduce and allow
50001.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Dr. Glenn, could you now turn to tab eight in
your binder. That
would be Exhibit 1958.
A. Give me just a minute.
I have tab eight, Exhibit 1958.
Q. Now is that a demonstrative exhibit summarizing
some of the
credentials of former SAB members?
A. Yes.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I would move Exhibit 1958
into evidence for
demonstrative purposes.
MR. CIRESI: Well, Your Honor, I think we just put
in all the CVs. This
is going to be cumulative.
MR. WEBER: Well this is just for demonstrative purposes
rather than put
the CVs themselves up.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CIRESI: I have no objection.
THE COURT: We'll allow 1958 for demonstrative purposes.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Could you just describe briefly to the ladies
and gentlemen of the
jury these two former members of the Scientific Advisory Board?
A. Well Dr. Leo Jacobson was for a long time the
chairman of the board
of the Scientific Advisory Board. As you see here from the abstract
of his
curriculum vitae, he also was dean of the School of Medicine of the
University of Chicago. He had been chairman of the Department of Medicine.
His field of interest was in blood cancers. And the most interesting
thing
was Dr. Jacobson was the first physician assigned to the Manhattan
Project,
the atomic bomb project in World War II. He was just a young resident
at
the time, and he was introduced to Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi,
who
were the men who invented the -- developed the atomic bomb. He didn't
know
what the project was. The biographical data about that is fascinating.
*36 MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, doctor. Your Honor, I'm
going to object on
relevance grounds, and also it's hearsay. If we can move on to issues.
THE COURT: I'll let it stand. But let's not get
too deeply involved in
the Manhattan Project today.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. And Dr. Lynch, Dr. Glenn?
A. Dr. Lynch was the guiding spirit of the Medical
College of South
Carolina, which is one of the oldest medical schools in the South.
He was a
pathologist with a special interest in pulmonary disease.
Q. Now could you turn to tabs nine and ten, which
are Exhibits 1899 and
1879, Dr. Glenn.
A. I have those.
Q. And are those the remaining two demonstratives
with respect to other
SAB members?
A. Yes. Well, or there is --
Yes.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd -- well I'll wait just
a moment.
MR. CIRESI: I'm going to save time, Your Honor,
if they're
demonstrative.
MR. WEBER: They're demonstrative.
MR. CIRESI: No objection.
MR. WEBER: Okay. That was 1899 and 1879, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 1879 and 1899 for
demonstrative purposes
only.
A. These are just other members of the SAB.
Q. Dr. Bing, can you --
A. Dr. Bing is the first -- I'm not -- maybe not
the first, but one of
the early experimental cardiologists. He's still active. He's retired
from
our board now, but he is active at 90 years of age; runs a research
laboratory still.
Dr. Feldman was our chairman for a number of years;
unfortunately died
two years ago. He -- his interest was immunology.
Q. And 1879?
A. Dr. Ros Boutwell was a member, a long-time member
of the board, but
he also served on the President's Advisory Committee on Cancer, and
is
still active in the area.
Dr. Karnovsky is the professor emeritus of biochemistry,
has been
awarded many, many, many honors.
And Dr. Knudson I've spoken about previously, is
a candidate for the
Nobel Prize for his work in -- in the origin of cancer.
Q. Was that the oncogene work you mentioned earlier?
A. Yes.
Q. Now doctor, take a look at tab 11, would you
please, which would be
-- it's another demonstrative, 1225.
MR. CIRESI: May I ask, Your Honor, is this another
resume of a
Scientific Advisory Board member?
MR. WEBER: Yes, it's former Advisory Board members
who were also
members of the National Cancer Institute. Same type of thing.
MR. CIRESI: No objection.
MR. WEBER: 1225.
THE COURT: Are you going to introduce it?
MR. WEBER: Yeah, I move to introduce for demonstrative
purposes Exhibit
1225, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Court will receive 1225 for demonstrative
purposes.
BY MR. WEBER:
Q. Now Dr. Glenn, over the years have scientists
at the National Cancer
Institute been members of the Scientific Advisory Board at CTR?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are they listed here on Exhibit 1225?
A. They are.
Q. Could you just briefly go through some of these
National Cancer
Institute scientists who sat on the board, the Scientific Advisory
Board
for The Council of Tobacco Research?
*37 A. Dr. Kotin was chief of the carcinogenesis
studies branch at the
National Cancer Institute. This means the study of the origins of cancer.
I
did not know Dr. Kotin; he retired from the board a number of years
ago.
Dr. Andervont was the editor of the Journal of the
National Cancer
Institute where many, many papers -- in fact, that is the second most
frequently cited journal as far as CTR papers are concerned.
Dr. Huebner was a virologist, the first chief of
the viral cancer
branch of the NCI.
And Dr. Peter Howley was a pathologist who is primarily
interested in
viruses as well. He is now the chairman of the department of pathology
at
Harvard University.
Q. Now Dr. Howley left the SAB in 1986?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has he been invited back for presentations or
speeches since that
time?
A. Yes, he's attended meetings and made presentations
to us. And we,
indeed, invited him to rejoin the -- the SAB, but he felt that he needed
to
spend time developing his department at Harvard first.
Q. Now are -- well strike that.
Have members of the Scientific Advisory Board of
The Council for
Tobacco Research also been members of boards for other funding
organizations?
A. Oh, yes. Large number of them.
Q. Could you name some of those other institutions
or agencies?
A. Well the prominent ones, ones that all of us
would recognize,
American Cancer Society, American Heart, American Lung Association,
the
Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, a wide variety.
Q. Are you aware of the reputation of these SAB
members, all of them,
since you've been affiliated with CTR, their reputation for the quality
and
integrity of their scientific work?
A. Oh, I think these -- these people are the cream
of the crop in
American medical research.
MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'm moving to another topic,
and I wonder if it
might be a good stopping point.
THE COURT: All right. We'll recess and reconvene
Monday at 9:30.
And I don't want to sound like a nag, but let me
again give you your
regular reminder: Don't discuss the case with your spouse or girlfriend
or
boyfriend or close friend or anybody. Do not read any newspapers, listen
to
any TV or radio that discuss the case. And if anyone approaches you
and
wants to discuss this matter and they continue to approach you, please
inform the court.
Have a nice weekend.
(Recess taken.)