|
Summary of Essential Action's Correspondence
with Essential Action has talked with and/or received correspondence from nearly 50 peer reviewers and one Scientific Advisory Board member. Please find below summaries of the conversations and links to the correspondence. GENERAL THEMES 2) Peer reviewers often focus on their desire to ensure quality research methodology rather than on how the resulting data might be used, i.e. they approach the issue from a purely scientific perspective, not an advocacy standpoint. 3) Many peer reviewers have very ambivalent feelings about working with the tobacco industry. They claim to detest the tobacco industry and seem to understand how PM uses external research to legitimize the company, but rationalize involvement in various ways (see below). 4) Many peer reviewers highly respect members of the Scientific Advisory Board and see their involvement as a "green light" for their own participation. COMMON RATIONALIZATIONS FOR WORKING WITH PHILIP MORRIS LIST OF PEOPLE ESSENTIAL
ACTION HAS TALKED WITH Marc A. Anderson, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison) 12/12/00 Has since declined the role of peer reviewer, because he submitted a proposal to PM's External Research Program. He is an environmental chemist who develops technology to clean indoor air and get rid of the components of second hand smoke. His philosophy is that if he can "use PM research money to better the environment,...he can go to bed with a clear conscience." According to Anderson, people have habits and "they will smoke whether we like it or not." He continued, that if we could help cigarettes not to cause cancer or not to contaminate the air-- or develop alcohol so that one could drink it and not get hurt, "we could drink [and smoke] freely, i.e. have our vice and eat it too." He said that he is not in the business of anti-tobacco research and that his work is not "political." He said he would "bet $100" that we were not making the phone call from outside. Even if no one smokes inside our office building, people are probably still getting sick from being locked in. He rationalized that he is using PM money to address a wide variety of indoor air environment issues, not just ETS. He claimed that there is a lack of funding for research in his field, and said [we] should convince NSF to fund what he wants to do. He said that he has had no previous connection to PM, but hopes to have one in the future. [Industry documents show that he applied for a grant from CIAR] Gerry Akland, Ph.D. (Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina) 1/8/01 Sent letter of response. See http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/akland.html Roy E. Albert, M.D. (University of Cincinnati Medical Center)
1/8/01 - SAB Got our letter and was just in the process of responding.
He does not appreciate the tobacco industry's covering up of the health
effects of tobacco smoking, their lobbying of governments and international
health organizations, nor their proselytizing [advertising?], but believes
that his participation on the SAB will do more good than harm. He noted
that Philip Morris is also Kraft and Miller beer, not just tobacco. "Like
anyone else," he said, he seeks a "balance between various considerations.
If there is evidence, as you contend, that research has been used for
unsavory ends [he would be upset]." He is "willing to give [the program]
a try, and see how it develops." The research proposals he has seen so
far don't look any different than the type of research proposals that
might be turned in to NIH. He will "keep tabs" to make sure that what
gets funded follows appropriate technical review. He believes that everything
approved so far will be funded, as it is his understanding that the program's
"purses are big." He will look at the match between the SAB system and
what is actually funded. He mentioned that Lorenzo de Mato [sp?], former
director of the International Agency for Cancer Research, was asked to
be on the SAB, but declined because "he couldn't be connected to the tobacco
industry." Albert said that he wrote about 4% of the first Surgeon General's
report on the health effects of tobacco ["proof" that he is genuinely
anti-tobacco. We told him that this is all the more reason PM wants him
on their SAB, and why he should cut his ties to the external research
program.] View correspondence: http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/albert.html Gjumrakch Aliev, M.D., Ph.D. (Case Western Reserve University)[1/11/01] He has not reviewed any proposals yet and has been very busy. He has accepted no money for his involvement which he sees as a "scientific marriage," not in any way "involved with political issues." He said that if researchers did not accept PM money, it would not stop people from smoking, but research that might have been helpful will not exist. He added that he saw no link between this issue and the companying stopping its "propaganda" and promotion of tobacco products to kids. Our campaign will not be successful, he said, because while 10% of the population might have a problem accepting money from the industry, 90% wouldn't. He said researchers could use the money to "fight within" -- to fight in an active, not passive way. Utlimately, he thinks our tactic is "not effective." He has and will not accept money for his roll. Janet Arey, Ph.D. (University of California, Riverside) 1/13/01 Email response: "I have requested that my name be removed from the Peer Reviewers list for the Research Management Group.", Steven D. Aust, Ph.D. (Utah State University) 12/31/00 Received email response from him. 2/1/01 Email response. View correspondence: http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/aust.html Clinton T. Baldwin, Ph.D. (Boston University School of Medicine) 1/8/01 Got our letter. The extent of the conversation: "I received it. I'll leave it at that. I have no other comments. Thank you." Rebecca Bascom, M.D. (Penn State College of Medicine) 12/13/00 Agreed to be a peer reviewer. About 8-10 years ago she got a several $100,000 grant from CIAR. She also used to peer review for CIAR. Her research interest is in individual susceptibility to lower level irritants not solvable by filtration. She has worked with the American Lung Association and testified for tobacco control. She used to be on the Board of Directors of the American Thoracic Society during which time they debated whether the organization's journal should accept papers from researchers funded by the tobacco industry. She noted that research on indoor air is dreadfully underfunded internationally. Given that tobacco is so bad, it is a real dilemma for her to take money from the tobacco industry. Due to this concern, as well as her participation in an epidemiological study with NIH, she said it "might make sense to resign [as a peer reviewer]." She was under the impression that the monetary compensation would amount to about $100 per review. When asked if she might consider our demands, she acknowledged that she has had a several year relationship with the people who asked her to be a peer reviewer. She added that thanks to our call, she can now develop a "counter relationship," and asked that we call back in a month. Stuart Batterman, Ph.D (University of Michigan) 1/5/01 Got our letter and is thinking about it. He agrees that some of the activities of CIAR were "very troubling." He never had a negative experience with CIAR. When he had his first contact with CIAR, it was clear that the center was funded by tobacco money, but the involvement of Mort Lippman, a "big name," convinced him it was okay. Batterman did not agree with some of our general arguments that the research was biased or that his name was being used to legitimize the company. He is mostly concerned about the CIAR's non-research related activities. Stuart Baxter, Ph.D. (University of Cincinnati Medical Center) 1/8/01 He read over our letter but not terribly deeply. He has read two proposals so far, but does not see how funding either or them would be manipulative. He is "very sympathetic" with our stance and "extremely critical" himself of the tobacco company for the sale of its products. He plans to be as "objective" as possible in reviewing proposals. At the same time, given his sympathies to our concerns, he plans to talk with some of the people on the Scientific Advisory Board about the process of reviewing proposals. He has reviewed two proposals so far dealing with research methodology for studying biological responses to carcinogens. He doesn't see how this research could increase the distribution of Philip Morris's products. The first proposal he reviewed is for further studying the carcinogens in cigarette smoke -something he thought could only be used for anti-tobacco purposes. He said the whole field is "very complex," and that a lot of scientists depend on getting money for their research. If they "should not" get money from the tobacco industry, many would be "deprived"- of a career in some cases. He knows a lot of people that got money from the "American Tobacco Foundation" [TRC?]. None really wanted to take tobacco money, but they were also concerned that if they did not get the money - where else would they get it from? "What it comes down to finally, is that the research will be done, whether or not researchers accept money from Philip Morris.[We're] objective scientists. We do work, present data - what people do with the data is not our area. Scientists have always been a little remiss in getting the data and [not concerning themselves with how it is used]. It is a little self serving, but when trying to survive it is a difficult [situation]." Baxter ended by noting that the tobacco industry supports American ballet and children's program, and that this "adds respectability to an unrespectable company." He never got funding from CIAR, but he has some friends who are scientists at Philip Morris who he knows personally -who probably recommended his name. William K. Boyes (U.S. EPA) 1/5/01 Got our letter. He already resigned in November and sent a letter to Max Eisenberg. Said Boyes, "When I agreed to [peer review] - I was na•ve I guess - I was told that it was an organization that wanted to fund scientific research like CIAR. Just follow up on the previous CIAR, but Philip Morris would bring it in house. As far as I knew straight up, it would fund peer reviewed research like other industry-sponsored research." Later a friend in EPA found information in internal documents on CIAR, indicating that it was a front for the industry, that its funding was biased, and that related research was not properly peer reviewed. It was not "up and up," as he was led to believe. His boss also expressed concern about having the names of EPA employees published in the request for applications - it seemed like an implicit endorsement by the EPA, and gave the impression of a conflict of interest. Boyes said that he is not aware of what other EPA employees have decided, though he knows that they are also considering the issue. As for himself, he does not want to be associated with anything not legitimate. He is very concerned about his scientific reputation, was fairly na•ve to have gotten involved - and very stressed when he found out more details about the program. He sent a copy of his letter of resignation to MaryJane Selgrade. 1/8/01 Received letter from Boyes. See http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/boyes.html Harriet Burge, Ph.D. (Harvard School of Public Health) 1/17/01 Email response. Will not review for program. See http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/burge.html Gary R. Burleson, Ph.D. (Burleson Research Technologies, Inc.)
1/14/01 In response to listserv emails, sent the following email: "Dear
Concerned: I will remove my name from the reviewer list. However, if I
receive even one additional (after 1/14/01) unsolicited invasion of my
airspace from one of your activists I will review proposals, never accept
honorarium for the work, and will volunteer my time and efforts to promote
PM's efforts to promote research. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" 1/19/01 Dr. Burleson
said he "realized [our] points" but that the program is "certainly doing
a lot of very good research." It has been "very annoying" to receive so
many emails. He feels that our campaign will do "a lot of harm to biomedical
research" by trying to prevent the company from benefiting from the research
it funds. He doesn't want the company to benefit either, but feels there
is still a need for this type of research. He said that many people have
cited the industry's covering up of it's own research. He doesn't think
this has anything to do with the current research program in which many
scientists are "doing good work to [benefit] humankind." His involvement
with CIAR was as a peer reviewer. After discussing how Philip Morris maintains
ultimate control over the research agenda (similar to the CIAR situation),
i.e. peer reviewers really exercise little power, he agreed that this
argument "makes a lot of sense," adding that "maybe he was not aware what
research was good or not." He agreed to send a letter of resignation to
the research program and wished us "good luck" in or campaign. Edward J. Calabrese, Ph.D. (University of Massachusetts) 1/8/01 Got our letter. "Read letter and am taking under advisement - appreciate what you wrote." Neal Castagnoli, Jr., Ph.D. (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) 1/8/01 His wife, Kay, says that Dr. Castagnoli has contacted the University's legal counsel about the issue. Once he has received counsel, he will send us an appropriate response. Daniel L. Costa (U.S. EPA) 1/5/01 Got our letter. He has thought about it, but is not yet sure where he stands. "I don't think you'll find anyone more anti-tobacco than myself, but I'm not convinced [that my involvement is so harmful]." He said that in his experience "working inside is more productive than working outside." Some of the things in our letter were "rather vague accusations based on older history." The industry is "slowly changing," he said. When he was peer reviewing for CIAR, a limited experience, he never sensed an "undue hidden agenda." After the External Research Program listed his EPA affiliation, he told them not to mention it again in the future. He had not expected them to include it. Before, with CIAR, they just listed his name, but did not highlight his EPA connection - he was and is doing this as a "personal thing." He has a friend who "went to the dark side" by going to work at Philip Morris. This friend has seen a fairly substantial change in the mood and sentiment within the company [we discussed whether this is real or just a necessary change to allow the company to continue business as usual]. Costa said that a major "stumbling block" has been the federal government. "Despite its song and dance, it does pathetically little [for tobacco control]. It subsidizes tobacco farmers, uses tobacco taxes to construct roads, and has no national stance on indoor air." He finds it unfortunate that the Congress reduced EPA's ability to address tobacco issues and criticized EPA for being a "meek, spineless organization" in backing out so readily. According to Costa, the way to change [the industry] is to bring in strong, ethical scientists. "Morton Lippman, you couldn't find a more stubborn, righteous person. I wouldn't want to come up against him in an ethical case. I can't imagine he would let anything slip by him." [we discussed the ethics of participating in the program vs. the specific issue of how research is carried out]. Costa raised the issue of Winston Salem schools and Lake Forest University getting millions of dollars in scholarships from the tobacco industry and asked whether they should not accept it. Finally, he concluded by saying that he essentially agrees with us, but hasn't decided what to do. "As much as I despise the tobacco industry as a whole--it bothers me when colleagues accept money from the department of defense or energy, when a coal burning plant can kill 1000 people [nuclear has problems but kills a lot less]." He said he always advocates changing things for the better, but recognizes that it means working with entities he might not agree with. He drew a comparison to opening up trade with China, saying it "will never change unless we go in and change it." [Discussed how research is conducted vs. how the results are used]. 1/12/01 Email response to our website. See: http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/costa.html John C. Chang, Ph.D. (U.S. EPA) 1/11/01 Email response: "This year's technical review has been done. I'll seriously consider not to participate next year" Leslie L. Christianson, Ph.D., P.E. (University of Illinois) 1/10/01 Email response. See http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/christianson.html Derek Dunn-Rankin, Ph.D. (University of California, Irvine) 1/26/01 Says he is "certainly thinking about" the issue. He has not yet been persuaded by our emails, since a lot of them have used the same language and haven't offered any new insights. Our most recent email re: PM Europe's research agenda was interesting to him, in terms of CIAR's methodology. He is "still fundamentally not convinced." He knows and trusts many of the others involved and says they do "good research." Many of would otherwise "not be able to do [their research]" because of the "competition for funds." He is still struggling with the issue. He thinks a balance is needed to have good research done on all subjects. He'd like to see "more, not less" research done. The "tricky thing is how much influence the funder has on the outcome," acknowledged Dunn-Rankin. Peer reviewing is necessary because "someone needs to look at the quality of work people do -- it's not different than reviewing manuscripts." He finds the "usery issue" somewhat compelling, but doesn't know yet how he feels and will wait to see what actually gets funded. He studies the control and flow of smoke. He said the "bottomline" is that he's interested in keeping in contact and learning more about what happens, who gets funded. We should keep him on our list, call periodically. What will make a difference to him is what comes out of the research agenda. Richard L. Doty, Ph.D. (University of Pennsylvania Medical Center) 1/28/00 Received email response. See http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/doty.html Peyton A. Eggleston, M.D. (The Johns Hopkins University) 1/5/01 Got our letter, but will probably not cut his ties to PM's External Research Program. He will certainly talk to other peers who have worked with CIAR. He appreciates what we've done and is concerned about the conflict of interest and misuse of researchers' involvement. His experience so far is "pretty evenhanded." He looks at environmental issues related to respiratory disease, which is why he got [funding from CIAR]. He will definitely ask his peers about this and talk about it. He acknowledged, "[I] suppose aware to some extent. Can't assume the industry would give money and not expect [something out of it]." But what he has seen of the research's use so far, seems of minimal help to the industry. The issue is of concern to him. James E. Enstrom, Ph.D. (University of California, Los Angeles) 1/5/01 Unlike others, started off by asking us questions. What organization is behind us? Where do we get our funding? How long have we been involved in tobacco control? He said that "apparently we have decided it useful to address [the company's] involvement with peer reviewers." Apparently we sounded less confrontory than other anti-tobacco folks he's previously talked with because he said we "seem to be more moderate than [others]" and that perhaps we might benefit from some dialogue. He said that he works in epidemiology and that he has never smoked a cigarette in his life, nor does he have any intention of promoting what the tobacco industry sells. However, his objective as a scientist is to "promote the truth." According to him, the funding objectives of the government have "shifted away from the truth to promoting their own agenda, what they believe [is true]." He said that any research with ideas that are "not mainstream" or "not politically correct" no longer get funding from NIH. He cited UCS and said there "are a lot of problems with those kinds of arguments" - making an allusion to Stan Glantz as the "kind of direction the field has taken." He finds the statistics used in California's program inflated. He said that there is "no debate - people are better off without cigarettes," but that Philip Morris has put warning labels on cigarettes for at least 30 years, as required by the law. "Smoking is voluntary. No one's holding a gun to one's head. Certainly--in the ideal world [the company] would sell another product, get rid of its tobacco interests." But it is a "legal product." He has never smoked, and was "leery of having anything to do with the tobacco company," but his interest in "getting at the truth" overrode these concerns. He is bothered that the data on ETS is "no longer the same quality as the original." We asked him which of his opinions were considered "not politically correct by NIH": he has made public statements against ETS studies. [We then asked him why he felt more comfortable worrying about "improperly conducted" ETS studies than how PM might use his statements]. He said he thought the Master Settlement was a great victory against the tobacco industry. In general, [the job of the scientist] is to "present information," and let people "make a decision," which is "the beauty of America -- it's free." He then went on to cite Friendship Heights' banning of smoking outdoors as example of how tobacco control has gotten totally out of control. He also cited the National Health, Lung and Blood Institutes longterm randomized control trial that started over 15 years ago, and questioned why there have been no publications from the project since 7 years ago [JAMA (vol 272, p 1497)]. He finds this "weird," and attributes it to their data showing no impact on death rates after 5 years of smoking cessation, i.e. not finding the results they clearly wanted. His work with PM is "not totally na•ve, or self interested," but rather an outcome of his interest in developing "appropriate policy" and the importance of "truthful data." Robert P. Friedland, M.D. (Case Western Reserve University) 1/5/01 Got our letter. He is a peer reviewer, and has also submitted a proposal to the program. He studies Alzeimer's disease. It is "absolutely a question of money - if I had another source of money I wouldn't be involved." He noted that the ethical issues are very complex. He is willing to take the money and do scientific research. He drew a comparison with taking money from the Department of Defense, saying that one could make an argument against it based on the number of people killed in the Gulf War. He is "very sympathetic" to what we are doing. He has some money from NIH, but could not do what he is doing without PM money. At least 20-30 of his papers could not have been done without PM's support. Other papers have been supported by alternative sources of funding, so he is "not saying his entire career depends upon PM, but it helps in a significant manner." For financial reasons he is not prepared to stop his involvement in the program. C. Gary Gairola, Ph.D. (University of Kentucky) 1/8/01 Got our letter. He did not review any proposals since he didn't have time - not for ethical reasons. He said that the people on the Scientific Advisory Board, e.g. Klaassen, are all respected researchers that will "review in an impartial" way. He applied for funding from CIAR in the past but did not receive any. He is retiring next year but notes that others require funding, and NIH is not funding enough of this type of research. He noted that despite all the tobacco control programs, it is not easy to quit. He agrees that the industry probably wouldn't fund anything that was very against its products, but sees this research as simply addressing "disease mechanisms." S. John Gatley, Ph.D. (Brookhaven National Laboratory) 1/8/01
He cited the line in our letter re: the need for people of all disciplines
to come together to promote the most effective prevention and cessation
programs. He sees this as "exactly" what he is doing. "Unless studies
are done, we will never acquire the [necessary] science base. Despite
_ a century of [knowing about the harms of tobacco smoking], why do we
still have 25 million who still smoke?" [We said one has only to look
as far as the tobacco industry!] He agreed that the tobacco industry "plays
on people's weaknesses," but added that some have a more "innate susceptibility
to substance addiction" than others. "Yes, agree, I don't like being in
bed with, or even having one foot in bed with a company like Philip Morris.
But even if they are doing a PR [exercise] as we know they are - if they
are giving money to do respectable research, [that can be good]--People
like me have to grit teeth [to work with industry]." If "10 cents [out
of a dollar]" is going to research that would not otherwise get funded,
"on the whole more ethical to do than not to do." He said he had colleagues
getting funding for breast cancer research from the U.S. Army and that
the army touts this research in public while failing to mention their
research into bullet design. He doesn't take money from the industry,
and never has, but has "drawn a line in his head" that his participation
is for the greater good. He doesn't know the history of CIAR and suspects
that maybe 5-10% of the projects it funded were useful for tobacco control,
since the industry is not going to fund stuff that is too anti-tobacco
- but that it also produced research results of worth. He said that he
is not American (British), and asked whether he should refuse U.S. government
money, because he disagrees with all sorts of things it does? "If Philip
Morris was on its last leg, the ethical thing to do would be to stamp
on it to make sure it did not get up again. But we're a long way from
that." He "really does see our point," and wouldn't take money from the
company, at the same time, he believes there is a real need for more research
on why people get addicted and find it impossible to quit. He smoked in
college, and though he quit long ago, still craves cigarettes. He said
that we "live in an imperfect world," and if we don't allow [peer-reviewed]
research to be conducted, research of questionable quality will take over.
One reason he is so anti-tobacco is that his parents were heavily addicted
to tobacco and "probably spent 10% of their income on tobacco." As a child,
he said, he "probably did without many things because of their addiction."
He is "sure we think in exactly the same way, that we'd like to see no
one smoke." At the same time, there are always promising smoking cessation
therapies touted, but they end up being disappointing when actually examined.
So far he has reviewed 3 proposals, two of which he thought were really
useful and unlikely to get funding from NIH. He "more or less agrees"
with what we are saying, but understands the value of basic research,
on which he has spent his whole career. He has never reviewed anything
before for Philip Morris, but if he finds out they don't take his recommendations
he will never do it again. He said to "call back in a year." He wouldn't
be surprises if PM funded something to "throw up a smoke screen," but
he doesn't see how PM could manipulate his research, e.g. the addictive
power of cigarettes, how fast cigarettes deliver nicotine to the brain
- if we find out, let him know. He also reviews projects by State of CA
board, which channels tobacco settlement money. He studies marijuana and
remarked that groups have called him to ask why he doesn't call for de-criminalizing
it. He thinks the government's position on marijuana is a "silly, overblown,
immoderate response." Sidney M. Gospe, Jr., M.D., Ph.D. (University of Washington Children's
Hospital) 1/5/01 Is no longer at the University of California. In May,
he told the program that he could not consider being a peer reviewer because
he didn't have the time. Perhaps he did not "flat out say Ôno.'" He was
shocked to get a letter from someone saying that his name was on the list.
Since then he has also thought of the ethical reasons concerned. He asked
me to fax him the list of peer reviewers and agreed to send a letter to
the program. 1/8/01 He called to say that he has sent a letter to Dr.
Max Eisenberg and will send us a copy. Sergey A. Grinshpun, Ph.D. (University of Cincinnati Medical Center) 1/8/01 Got our letter. He was in the middle of a meeting and couldn't have a long discussion, but said that he had briefly reviewed the letter. His interest is in "pursuing anything needed to improve quality indoor air and fund good quality research" to improve the health of the American people. He had no comment on CIAR and ended the conversation there. Fariborz Haghighat, Ph.D. (Concordia University, Canada) 1/4/01 Sent email. See http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/haghighat.html David Jacoby, M.D. (The Johns Hopkins University) 1/5/01 Got our letter, but doesn't agree with us. He's never known any [CIAR] grant to be specific to disproving the linkage between tobacco and lung disease. He reviews grants for NIH and ALA - "That's part of what do in lung research." He raised the question of the lack research funding from alternative sources, noting that "a lot of researchers couldn't manage without CIAR, TRC. Not everyone is funded by NIH." He doesn't agree with our stance. He has heard ALA saying that researchers should not accept money from the tobacco industry, but ALA does not fund research instead, nor does our group. He said that it is routine for NIH to provide peer reviewers' names. It's not that doesn't understand our position, he just doesn't agree with us "if [we] are arguing to stop anything [funded by the tobacco industry] that studies other causes of lung cancer." He said that if we were worried about research being funded by the tobacco industry, what about NIH? [They get their money from the tobacco industry, through taxes] Funding for research, even if from a tobacco company is a good thing. He doesn't see such bad things coming from it. The relationship is "too tenuous," though he appreciates our point of view. Roger A. Jenkins, Ph.D. (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) 1/23/01 Email response. See http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/jenkins.html Dale O. Kiesewetter, Ph.D. (National Institutes of Health) 1/5/01 Got our letter. "I have nothing to say. I decided it was something I wanted to do & I'm going to do it. That's all." [8/01 NIH has asked Kiesewetter to resign] Richard J. Looney, M.D. (University of Rochester Medical School) 1/9/01 Sent email response: "I do not intend to do any reviews." 1/9/01 sent 2nd email response: "I have not notified the program. I do not have a contact to do so. My name was submitted to them by a colleague. I have not yet been asked to do anything for them. If I am contacted by them again, I will explain that I will not be doing peer review." George Leikauf, Ph.D. (Unviersity of Cincinatti Medical Center) 1/22/01 Sent email. See http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/leikauf.html 1/22/01 Phone conversation & second email. 2/12 sent email. James J. McGrath, Ph.D. (Texas Tech University) 1/8/01 1/17/01 Dr. McGrath said that he is "rented" out by the EPA every 2 years. He just got back to the department. His expertise is in particulate matter and ultrafine deposition of aerosols in the lung. He feels "besieged" by the emails and finds them "almost threatening." He compared the campaign to a "similar situation" that involved animal rights activists doing an action in the lab that involved bloody condoms. He has "no interest in getting involved" and will remove his name from the peer review list. He thinks what the tobacco industry does is "abhorent," but still thinks that "unless someone sponsors [this type of research] it will not get done." He noted that we were probably sitting in a building with poor indoor air would would like to know what elements are in it -- but that there is little research. [He also noted that Morton Lippman, an SAB member, was also an advisor to the EPA.] Antonio H. Miguel, Ph.D. (University of California, Los Angeles) 1/5/01 Got our letter and said he had faxed a response. He is overwhelmed with work and can't really do the peer reviewing - maybe in 6 months. He has not been able to fully evaluate the ethical issues involved. He is now working with EPA, and [natural resources] in California. He doesn't quite know, and no one has been able to give him a definite answer [about the conflict in interest]. If he does do some peer reviewing, he will not accept money. Since he agreed to peer review, he has assumed a new position at the Institute of Environment, which is in the middle of the medical school. It gets funding from the government. He has received a lot of calls about this, almost all from Latin America [a Brazilian journalists contacted us about him earlier in the week]. "The media insinuates that research is biased if funded by the tobacco industry" [Talked a lot about individual research vs. larger agenda of funder]. He will look into the links to industry documents that we cited and get back to us. J. David Miller, Ph.D. (Carleton University, Canada) 12/20/00 Sent letter to Coalition Quebecoise pour le Controle du Tabac. See http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/action/pmpr/miller.html Notes on conversation with J. David Miller (Carleton University) 1/2/01:
He has worked extensively on housing and health. The research he conducted that was funded by CIAR was on methods to measure molds. Since age 15, he has been telling people not to smoke -- though he notes that it is difficult to convince people not to do so. Despite his opposition to smoking, he has no particular moral problem with the tobacco industry. He said that tobacco is similar to asbestos and genetically modified organism in that there are people who say that they are "inherently bad." "The bottom line," he said, "is like it or not, and I don't like it, smoking is legal and government and politicians are unwilling to take [strong] measures." He noted that he lives in a city, country with strong regulations against smoking in public places. Kent E. Pinkerton, Ph.D. (University of California, Davis) 12/15/00 When he was asked to be a peer reviewer several months ago, he declined due to a heavy work load, but instructed the organizers "to think of him in the future." He was later surprised to see his name on the list. His specific research focus is factors in respiratory development in children. He received funding through CIAR for six years. He hypothesized that his research had gone in a direction CIAR didn't like (perhaps" too successful in finding that ETS really is hazardous"), as an explanation for why he stopped receiving funding. He said that he never felt anyone manipulated him or stopped him from publishing his research. In the beginning, he did not know that CIAR was funded by the tobacco industry. He found out about the Center from a colleague and one of his mentors from Duke University who was on the CIAR board. All he knew about CIAR then, was that it was modeled off the Health Effects Institute in Cambridge which examined combustion [engines] and air pollution (funding: 50% EPA, 50% automobile industry). Only after three years did he learn that CIAR was 80% supported by the tobacco industry, at which point he said he could no longer "claim to have been naive." Although he had had some of his early research published by the American Thoracic Society, he later had articles turned down due to his ties to CIAR. He argued, in vain, that inclusion should be based on peer reviewed, rigid standards of scientific merit and not who does the funding. Before our call, he had not thought of officially asking PM to remove his name from the list of peer reviewers, seeming content to have made a personal decision not to peer review. He agreed that there might soon be repercussions for researchers who accept funding from the industry, particularly in California, and that it makes sense to cut ties to the industry. He noted ironically that he continues to get messages and communication from both tobacco control groups and the tobacco industry, despite his research being "anti-tobacco." He has made up his mind that he will no longer submit any proposals to PM, though he has "complete respect" for Max Eisenberg and Lynn Channing (leaders of both CIAR and PM external research program), with whom he has a "very amicable" relationship. He knows a lot of people who have applied to PM's program. He has told many of them that he can't be associated with the program, even though he found CIAR "extremely reasonable to work with." He said that he "never felt used," adding somewhat hesitantly, that "maybe he was." He admitted that to have CIAR resurrected, but this time blatantly sponsored by PM, is "incredible." We discussed the possibility of writing a letter to PM to officially break his connection to the company's research program. He plans to consider his options and seek legal advice. Peter Rojeski, Ph.D. (North Carolina A & T State University)
1/5/01 Got our letter. As an engineer who studies indoor air quality,
he does not see his results politically motivated one way or the other.
He has sampled air quality in restaurants and recommended that they ban
smoking. He said that our group, on the other hand, is "totally politically
motivated." This is "not his thing." He is interested in the "science
of the situation." If people wish to smoke, they're stupid, but it's a
"free country." He respects us and asks that we respect him. He's been
"involved with CIAR over the years and never felt any pressure on way
or the other, any slanting or modifying in any shape or form, no positioning
to change." The results he came up with were anti-smoking: few restaurants
and hospitals have adequate air conditioning to accommodate smoking. There
was no effort to get him not to publish his results. Tobacco is legal,
but it is a bad product - he considers it bad. No one smokes in his house
or in his presence, but it's a "free country." He sees his job as making
scientific information available so people will be more aware. For example
he worked on a sanitation project that examined the hygiene of restaurants
in his area. They then rated the restaurants according to the risk involved
eating at them (e.g. salmonella poisoning) and posted the ratings at the
front door. "It's up to the public to make the choice. Many anti-tobacco
groups want to eliminate choice. In a free country shouldn't do this,
unless tobacco illegal. But it is legal, as distasteful and dangerous
it is, and as stupid [as people are to smoke it]." He reviewed a proposal
on how good or bad air quality is in the UK. The study would sample air
quality in pubs and bars, similar to his salmonella project. He is interested
in how they will apply the project from a technical standpoint - A-rated
or D-rated. "If this is something the UK parliament is going to support,
they should do it right." Mary Rose (Children's Research Instite) 7/11/01 Has not made a decision yet. No time to think about it yet. Has broken back. Not top priority. Will not say when will. Mark Sassaman (NIH) 1/5/01 Got our letter. He said, "I don't want to discuss it. I'm staying neutral--There are two sides to the coin. I am not discussing it. I appreciate your point of view--.It is not for discussion--I am trying not to be rude." [8/01 NIH has asked Sassaman to step down] Mary Jane Selgrade (EPA) 1/5/01 Got our letter. She is not serving as a peer reviewer due to many issues [that she wouldn't elaborate on]. The decision to peer review was a "personal decision." Whether she participates or not, it will not change the advertising [of tobacco]. The research program might be more legitimate if she stayed than if she dropped out, since they're going to do it anyway. "It is my business and not yours. Anyway, I'm not doing it." She then hung up on us. Leigh Simpson, Ph.D. (University of Cincinnati) 1/8/01 Got our letter. She agrees that most tobacco-related diseases would be eliminated if we could encourage people not to smoke. She is "not pro-tobacco" but has much experience dealing with patients who [have a very difficult time quitting]. She said that the "new" research program is "obviously PR," but the grants submitted so far are for "basic research" that could provide "useful information that has nothing to do with Philip Morris." When she was asked to be a peer reviewer she debated "is it unethical?" but decided she didn't think it was. She thinks people will see through the PR, and although it is PR, it is still a good thing to contribute to. She added that the research should be rated by independent scientists, her "as much as anyone." She appreciates our point of view, but isn't sure that if everyone refused to take money from the company, that there would not be a need for this research to be done. She only glanced over our letter and references to the industry documents. She will definitely go and read the confidential documents. She said that it is "obvious" PM's investment in research is self serving, and because it is so generally acknowledged no reasonable person would believe any of the company's resulting PR - she thinks the company gets less out of the research than the researchers. In grad school she received some tobacco money though her research had no ties to tobacco or environment issues. She said that everyone is using each other. PM is using scientists for PR, but scientists are also using PM to do research [that goes beyond tobacco-related issues]. Again, she doesn't think anyone believes PM's PR. She will look again at our references and maybe change her mind. Applied for CIAR (but did not receive funding) Harmohindar Singh, Ph.D., P.E. (North Carolina A & T State University) 1/5/01 Got our letter. Will respond by Monday Mark A. Smith (Case Western Reserve) 1/5/01 15-20 min Got our
letter. He needs to reassess his position, but will probably continue
his involvement with the program. The grants he's received (to peer review)
are "very basic," and "not being funded to the extent they should." He
read our letter and agreed with many of our points. He agrees that the
involvement of independent scientists gives legitimacy to the corporation.
As a scientist, however, he is for getting money to do good stuff. He
doesn't see anything in the data will result that could be viewed positively
to any tobacco product. He is interested in investigating mechanisms,
e.g. effects of nicotine on brain, slow death, related to Parkinsons,
Alzeimers... basic knowledge that does not appear to have anything to
do with tobacco. He considered "telling them to go screw themselves because
[they're] Big Tobacco. At same token, the positives that come out of my
involvement override the negatives." He said he hadn't been involved with
CIAR, but was probably chosen because he peer reviews for a number of
agencies [e.g. NIH?], is involved with an Alzeimer's Association, and
does relevant work, though it is not with nicotine. He just "takes [the
company] on its word." He somewhat jokingly said he is European [English]
so he is "pro-smoking" and believes "if you want to kill yourself, go
ahead." In England, they used to joke that the government should encourage
smoking so people wouldn't collect their pensions. [Discussed scientific
vs. advocacy perspective]. He will take a look at our materials again,
give Philip Morris a call, and ask that they supply past data, previous
[peer reviewers'] scores of proposals. [We encouraged him to check out
the industry doc that ranks CIAR proposals according to PM's ETS objectives].
He agrees with many things we're saying, and plans to use this issue as
a case study in an ethics class he teaches - "it will be great for discussion
and study, as it's not black and white." David C. White, M.D., Ph.D. (University of Tennessee) 12/20/00 He did agree to peer review for the PM External Research Program, although he said he won't peer review anything "political." Received a several $100,000 grant from CIAR four years ago. As a physician he "hates smoking" and thinks it "abomidable," but he finds it hard to turn down money. When questioned where he draws the line in accepting funding from the tobacco industry, he drew comparisons to DuPont and explosives and Coca-Cola and unhealthy soft-drinks. While he disagrees with these products, if these companies offered him money, he said he would probably take it. He remarked that sometimes you have to "make deals with the devil." He added that he did not feel comfortable working with PM and realized he was a "prostitute" to the company. However, when he needed financial help, they assisted him, and he feels a certain obligation to reciprocate. He will draw the line when the "industry funds research he doesn't approve of." His primary funding source is the federal government. The subject of monetary compensation for peer reviewing had not been discussed with him. When asked if he would agree to refuse any money PM offers, and to resign from his role as peer reviewer, he said he couldn't. Klaus Willeke, Ph.D. (University of Cincinnati Medical Center) 1/11/01 Email response: "Thanks for your comments. I never reviewed for them and do not know how I got on the list." 2/2/01 Email response: "I have no intention of reviewing for them." For more information, please contact: Contact: Anna White
|