|
Correspondence from S. John Gatley,
Ph.D. Email 1/3/01 Subject: peer review for Philip Morris Ms White: Thank you for your letter. I have attached a reply I wrote to an e-mail message from Dr ML Martin that expressed similar sentiments. While strongly sympathizing with your views, I think that more good is likely to come out of me facilitating research that contributes to a better understanding of addictive illnesses and how to treat them, than for me to shun the Philip Morris company. I don't take myself so seriously that I think this would have a significant effect. Probably all that would happen if people like myself take your advice is that without effective peer-review money would be wasted on poor quality research. I don't wish to make light of the important and perfectly valid points you make. However, perhaps I have had more opportunities than you to reflect on the value of medical research. In that context, I would like to know whether you are opposed to me reviewing grant proposals from U.S. agencies such as the National Institute on Drug Abuse because you disapprove (I hope) of the failure of the U.S. government to ban sales of hand guns, sign international treaties on land mines, keep drunken drivers off the roads, and support universal health care. Sincerely, John Gatley Email Attachment: Dear Doctor Jones: Your point of view has a great deal of force, and of course I considered your general type of argument before agreeing to review a grant proposal for Philip Morris. I am sure that as a physician you often encounter health problems associated with cigarette smoking. Furthermore, I suspect that you and I have a great deal of common ground. When giving talks about drug abuse to students and other groups, I usually put up a slide with a quote from one of the Tobacco Company documents you mention, that states the need to "hook" teenage smokers, and I explicitly compare this attitude to that of cocaine traffickers. No decent person could condone the historical patterns of behavior of the tobacco companies. If I thought that my activities (reviewing a grant proposal from a researcher who wants to conduct PET studies on smokers and non-smokers) encouraged people to smoke then I would cease them. In fact, I have strong personal reasons (that I need not go into here) for disliking tobacco smoking and those who profit from it. However, there is another point of view that you may not be fully considering. Let me quote from your e-mail message: "Given such mind-boggling, sobering statistics, it is imperative that doctors, researchers, public health officials, teachers, and non profit organizations focus their attention on the most effective methods of preventing people from starting to use tobacco products and helping those who do to quit." I absolutely agree with this. As a medical researcher involved in drug abuse and neuroimaging, I believe that in order for society to deal with cigarette smoking, it is critical to develop an understanding of the underpinnings of addiction. However, this requires that researchers are able to obtain the funds necesary to conduct appropriate studies. I would argue that good will come of research funded by Philip Morris, provided that it can pass the same level of peer review as a grant from e.g. the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). This cannot happen unless people like myself review the proposals. In agreeing to act as a reviewer, I am trying to ensure that some of Philip Morris' profits are spent in ways that will be medically and societally useful in helping us to understand why tobacco is addictive (and why other substances, such as alcohol, are addictive). Regardless of what Philip Morris (allegedly) would like to see, continued research is the best path towards developing "the most effective methods of preventing people from starting to use tobacco products and helping those who do to quit." In a brief e-mail message, one cannot do more than scratch the surface of any of the issues that are involved in cigarette smoking specifically or addictive behavior in general. I respect the opinions that led you to take the time to write a letter to me. I accept that you may be correct in your advice to not review grant proposals for Philip Morris, but on the whole I think you are not "weighting" into your opinion the desperate needs for or benefits of responsible research into addiction, even when the research is funded by a tobacco company. Email 1/10/01 Subject: Re: Philip Morris Research Reviewers Bill: I would like you to know that I have the same opinion of Philip Morris as yourself. However, I respectfully suggest that you are not factoring into your opinion the value of basic research designed to help us understand addiction, which is the best way to eventually help smokers and other addicts. In essence, my point of view arises from my experience in reviewing grant proposal for the National Institute on Drug Abuse. There are not enough federal funds available even to fund proposals which are ranked as outstanding. If Philip Morris funds research that helps us to understand addiction then I'm willing to review proposals for them. If the proposals are not reviewed by people like me, then they will be reviewed by people who do not understand the issues, and perhaps tobacco industry sycophants, and the good ones are less likely to be funded. Philip Morris will indulge in this PR exercise regardless of what an individual like myself does. I had a constructive, I think, talk with Ms White yesterday in which I discussed my view on these issues. She is very polite; I urge you to emulate her. You will not advance your cause by insulting people who are better educated and informed than you are, and are actually on the same side. John Email 1/14/01 From: Dr. John Gatley I would like you to know that I have the same opinion of Philip Morris as yourself. I think it is possible that I should follow your suggestion and decline to review proposals. However, I respectfully suggest that you are not factoring into your opinion the value of basic research designed to help us understand addiction, which is the best way to eventually help smokers and other addicts. By the way, I too have suffered from having smoked cigarettes, although not to the horrible extent that you have. Even though I have not had a cigarette for almost exactly 30 years I still crave them occasionally. The important question is: Why did either of us smoke? For anyone who cared to read the literature and had the education to evaluate it, which is apparently true for both of us, it was clear that cigarettes caused cancer well before 1960. Probably peer-pressure caused me to begin smoking, but it was clearly addiction that kept me smoking. Addiction to substances (and behaviors) other than tobacco are responsible for much misery in the world. I agreed to review a grant proposal for Philip Morris because I think that we will not develop effective tools to help people with addictive disorders unless appropriate research is conducted. My point of view arises in part from my experience in reviewing grant proposal for the National Institute on Drug Abuse. There are not enough federal funds available even to fund all the proposals which are ranked as outstanding, and a majority of proposals that are considered worthy of supporting go unfunded. If Philip Morris helps to pay for research that helps us to understand addiction then I'm willing to grit my teeth and review proposals for them. If the proposals are not reviewed by people like me, then they will be reviewed by people who do not understand the issues, and perhaps tobacco industry sycophants, and good researchers will not be supported, and may be driven from the field. I totally agree with you about the tobacco industry, but I have come to a different conclusion about the best thing for someone like me to do at the present. Look: I could easily use your reasoning to urge people to refuse to review grant proposals for U.S. government agencies, because I disapprove of some actions and policies of the U.S. government, as I hope you do. PM may be funding addiction research for PR reasons, but, ultimately, the kind of research that I am qualified to review is what is going to drive them out of business. It may not have been intended, but if you think about it you may see that your letter is a little bit insulting because it assumes that I have not thought these issues through. I have. Actually, on re-reading it, I see that your letter is polite compared with most of the others I have received. Thank you. I agree with you about PM, fundamentally, but I think that the ethical thing for me to do at the moment is to exert whatever slight influence I have on their funding decisions, because Philip Morris will indulge in this PR exercise regardless of what an individual like myself does. In response to: Email from Wayne Baker to peer reviewers Subject: Peer Reviews Peer reviewer I'm sure you know that accepting a position of any sort with a company as duplicitous, dishonest, politically manipulative and inconsiderate of the public health as Philip Morris is controversial at best. In the minds of many of us, taking any position with Philip Morris paints the acceptor with the same brush of immorality as the one that has drenched the company. The fact that their products are "legal" does not remove the taint derived from putting profits ahead of concerns for humanity. Philip Morris is duplicitous in declaring cigarettes to be unhealthy, but promoting them as enhancing glamour, independence, ruggedness, sexinessÉ but never as the threat to health that they are. They've known since the early 50s about specific health risks associated with tobacco use, but at the same time they were running ads such as "You'll Feel Better" and "Smoke Without Fear". Their dishonesty is demonstrated in the differential between their actions and their claims. For example, in 1999 Philip Morris Senior Vice President Stephen Parrish stated, "In 1995 Philip Morris voluntarily stopped cigarette distribution that could not be easily controlled, such as the free sampling of cigarettes". Yet in April of 2000, and probably today, free samples of Marlboro cigarettes are being distributed in Vietnamby young women in red and white uniform, to young people of questionable age. In the same speech Mr. Parrish stated "In 1997 we voluntarily stopped distributing branded non-tobacco items such as Marlboro hats and T-shirts in response to public concern". Yet today promotion runs rampant in Asia, Europe and Africa with Marlboro clothing shops, schemes for accumulating cigarette packs to exchange for clothing and other articles and activities such as popular music records and concerts and promotion of sports teams. In the U.S. Philip Morris claims that they are not placing products in movies, but we find Julia Roberts flaunting cigarette laws in the Philip Morris backed film "My Best Friend's Wedding". The presence of smoking in movies and in promotion of movies aimed at young people is not accidental. It is clearly given impetus by the tobacco industry with Philip Morris taking the lead. A couple of years ago C. Everett Koop noted that by 2025 the tobacco industry will have killed 500,000 people. That's half a billion people. The number of Americans that were killed in the Vietnam War Ð that many people are killed by the tobacco industry EVERY DAY. A number equal to those killed in Bhopal is killed EVERY TWO HOUS. They kill as many people as were killed when the Titanic went down, in less time that it took to sink. Bhopal and the Titanic were accidents. Tragic and irresponsible certainly, but they were unplanned events. Tobacco deaths are not accidents. The people who make and market tobacco know full well that what they are doing is making a world of victims. Make no mistake. You will not be representing a macaroni and cheese company. You will be representing a company that is willing to sacrifice the health of their customers, to their bloody bottom line. Your representation of Philip Morris will be nothing more than another ploy to maximize their sales and profits. It takes a special kind of person to ignore the facts and participate in the direct or indirect victimization of people throughout the world. I hope sincerely that you are more honorable than that. I hope that instead of lending your good name to this despicable company that you will join the boycott of all Philip Morris Products and lend your talents to educating young people about the dangers of tobacco and the character of industry. I am a laryngectomee. I lost my larynx to cancer which was caused by use of Philip Morris tobacco products. I have given them enough money and enough body parts. Join me in refusing to give Philip Morris the lungs and hearts of the worlds people. Let us stop giving them our health and our money. Let us instead give them the scorn that they deserve. Sincerely, Wayne Baker, President California Association of Laryngectomees Email 1/23/01 Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:34 AM Dear Mr Boomer: Thanks for your letter. I understand your concerns. Why don't you call me and talk about this? 631-344-4394 I am certainly not a paid consultant of Philip Morris, as you seem to assume. The ethical situation seems a little more complex from where I sit. The reasons I agreed to review a proposal for PM are given below, as a copy of a letter I sent to Dr Karen Emmons of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in response to a letter that was similar to yours. Dear Dr Emmons: Thank you for your letter of January 5th. I would like you to know that I have the same opinion of Philip Morris as yourself. I think it is possible that I should follow your suggestion and decline to review proposals. However, I respectfully suggest that you are not factoring into your opinion the value of basic research designed to help us understand addiction, which is the best way to eventually help smokers and other addicts. In the case of cigarette smoking, research into addiction may do more to reduce cancer than most other kinds of effort. My point of view arises in part from my experience in reviewing grant proposal for the National Institute on Drug Abuse. There are not enough federal funds available even to fund all the proposals which are ranked as outstanding, and a majority of proposals that are considered worthy of support go unfunded. If Philip Morris helps to pay for research that helps us to understand addiction then I'm willing to grit my teeth and review proposals for them. If the proposals are not reviewed by people like me, then they will be reviewed by people who do not understand the issues, and perhaps tobacco industry sycophants, and good researchers will not be supported, and may be driven from the field. I totally agree with you about the tobacco industry, but I have come to a different conclusion about the best thing for someone like me to do at the present. Look: I could easily use your reasoning to urge people to refuse to review grant proposals for U.S. government agencies, because I disapprove of some actions and policies of the U.S. government, as you must also. PM may be funding addiction research for PR reasons, but, ultimately, the kind of research that I am qualified to review is what is going to drive them out of business. It may not have been intended, but if you think about it you may see that your letter is a little bit insulting because it assumes that I have not thought these issues through. I have. I agree with you about PM but I think that the ethical thing for me to do at the moment is to exert whatever slight influence I have on their funding decisions, because Philip Morris will indulge in this PR exercise regardless of what an individual like myself does. At some point, hopefully in our lifetimes, the tobacco industry will be close to extinction. At that time I'll happily join you in stamping the last bit of life out of the corpse. Please pass on this e-mail to Drs Sorenson and Colditz. |