Email from Essential Action to peer reviewers and SAB membersSubject: PM's global scientific agenda Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:21:40 -0500 From: Anna White [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] We wanted to bring your attention to to a report in a Danish newspaper today on Philip Morris's EEC/EEMA ETS project and the company's infiltration of EU-sponsored ETS projects. The article cites a PM document that is directly relevant to CIAR and Philip Morris's "new" External Research Program. In it, Philip Morris outlines its strategy for combating smoking bans, through the use of independent scientists and engineers. Incidentally, this document was prepared a month before the establishment of CIAR. One of the PM researchers mentioned, Dr. Reif, played an integral role in reviewing proposals for CIAR. Please find below some relevant excerpts from the PM document and a link to the full text. We understand that almost all the researchers connected to Philip Morris's External Research Program hold strong anti-tobacco sentiments. We do not question your goal of improving human health, rather your belief that an association with the tobacco industry will help you toward that goal. There is much evidence to the contrary and we encourage you, if you have not already, to read the internal industry documents that outline Philip Morris's global scientific agenda. In choosing to work with the company, you have become part of this agenda. Already fifteen researchers, including two U.S. EPA employees, a Harvard researcher, and several others with long ties to CIAR, have confirmed that they will no longer be involved with the Philip Morris External Research Program. We commend their decision and encourage all researchers who have not done so already, to follow their leadership. We think the internal Philip Morris documents speak for themselves. But you might also ponder the following questions: Please keep in mind that this is NOT an independent research program that Philip Morris is funding (e.g. through taxes). This is a program that Philip Morris maintains total control over. According to the program's Request for Applications, p. 3, "Studies recommended by the SAB are subject to final approval by Philip Morris's Scientific Research Review Committee. This committee provides Philip Morris assurances that all scientific studies funded by Philip Morris meet the highest scientific, ethical, and legal standards and SERVE RELEVANT BUSINESS NEEDS, AS MANDATED IN THEIR CHARTER." [our emphasis] Again, we urge you to consider what participation in the Philip Morris External Research Program really means. One runs into many ethical dilemmas in life. In our opinion, this one's not worth rationalizing back and forth. It's a simple, straightforward choice: will you or won't you agree to let Philip Morris use you to legitimize its agenda? Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions, want further information, or have made a decision to join other researchers who will no longer be participating in the Philip Morris External Research Program. We welcome your responses, Contact: Anna White THE PM EEC/EEMA ETS PROJECT 1. Objectives The objective of the PM EEC/EEMA ETS Project is to prevent the imposition of smoking restrictions in the EEC/EEMA regions based on the asserted health hazards of ETS to non-smokers. To realize this objective, three audiences must be persuaded that the health claims by anti-smoking forces concerning ETS are groundless. Those threeaudiences are the scientific community, regulatory authorities, and the general public. In the short term, the argument against smoking restrictions must be based on the weakness of the scientific case made by the anti-smoking forces. For this purpose, scientists must be available who can attack the studies relied on by the anti-smoking forces to justify smoking restrictions on health grounds. Scientists and engineers also must be available who can demonstrate that any irritation to non-smokers from ETS can and should be mitigated through improvements in ventilation/filtration systems in offices and other indoor environments. Solving the ETS "problem" should be made part of solving the more general indoor air quality problem. In the longer term, it will not suffice to base the argument against smoking restrictions on the weakness of the case made by the anti-smoking forces. As long as anti-smoking forces can maintain a suspicion of risk, regulatory authorities and the general public are likely to choose to err on the side of caution and support smoking restrictions. The argument against smoking restrictions based on the existence of "controversy" on the ETS health issue also is unlikely to prove persuasive because it is so reminiscent of the industry's argument on the primary health issue, which virtually no-one outside of the industry accepts. Thus, the industry will have to establish affirmatively that ETS presents no significant health risk to non-smokers. The industry can accomplish this long-term goal only by sponsoring a basic research programme that takes into account the gaps in existing scientific knowledge and the requirements of particular markets, and by disseminating the knowledge generated by this research programme to the three audiences mentioned above. It can accomplish the more immediate goal of defeating smoking restrictions as such restrictions are proposed in particular markets only by mobilizing in each market a corps of scientific consultants and engineers who can make the scientific case against smoking restrictions through articles in scientific journals and presentations at scientific conferences and symposia, through articles and interviews in the mass media, and through meetings with and appearances before regulatory authorities. |