The tobacco industry, working through third parties to prevent policy-relevant research that adversely affected it between 1988 and 1998, used coordinated, well-funded strategies in repeated attempts to silence tobacco researcher Stanton A. Glantz. Tactics included advertising, litigation, and attempts to have the US Congress cut off the researcher's National Cancer Institute funding. Efforts like these can influence the policymaking process by silencing opposing voices and discouraging other scientists from doing work that may expose them to tobacco industry attacks. The support of highly credible public health organizations and of researchers’ employers is crucial to the continued advancement of public health.

Public policy intervention—e.g., aggressive public-education campaigns, mandated smoke-free environments, and high cigarette taxes—is the most effective way to reduce tobacco-caused disease.1,2 The prosperity of the tobacco industry depends on prevention of these policies and maintenance of a supportive policy environment. Among other strategies for safeguarding its interests,310 the tobacco industry attempts to counteract or obstruct the work of researchers whose work may be detrimental to tobacco industry interests.11,12 To that end, the industry has portrayed targeted researchers as extremist, unqualified, or politically motivated; denigrated researchers to superiors, publishers, and the public; sued researchers; and worked to cut off researchers’ funding. The industry pursues these strategies through allied elected officials, front groups, and other third parties. These efforts can influence the policymaking process by silencing voices critical of tobacco industry interests and discouraging other scientists from doing research that may expose them to industry attacks.

The case of tobacco control researcher Stanton Glantz, an author of this paper, illustrates the full range of strategies used by the tobacco industry to attack scientists whose work supports tobacco control. Documentation of these events is based on searches between February and November 2006 of the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu), which located approximately 500 documents that described tobacco industry activities pertaining to Glantz's research and funding. Initial search terms included “Glantz [including misspellings] and funding” and “Glantz and NCI [National Cancer Institute],” followed by searches for specific individuals and groups. We also examined documents from Glantz's own files pertaining to tobacco industry lawsuits against the University of California, San Francisco (where Glantz is a faculty member), media articles concerning Glantz's tobacco-related research, relevant correspondence, and other pertinent materials.

The tobacco industry's monitoring of Glantz's early tobacco-related research appears in a 1990 dossier prepared by law firm Shook Hardy and Bacon in 1990.13 The dossier describes Glantz's May 21, 1990, presentation of research (with coauthor William Parmley) at the World Conference on Lung Health, which concluded that secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) caused approximately 53 000 nonsmoker deaths a year, including 37 000 from heart disease.14 This presentation led to a full-page New York Times story covering the research,15 which provoked the Tobacco Institute, the tobacco industry's lobbying and public relations arm, to send the New York Times a 2-page letter to the editor that read, in part: “The discussion of Glantz's theories as if they were accepted scientific thinking is an error that one does not expect from the New York Times… . The reporting was uncritical, unsupportable and unbalanced.”16 After the New York Times failed to publish the letter, a number of people wrote letters to the New York Times protesting the paper's failure to publish a response to Glantz and Parmley's conclusions.17 None of these letter-writers revealed that they were actually members of the Tobacco Institute's secret Scientific Witness Program18 (Table 1).

Table

TABLE 1 Known Tobacco Industry Consultants and Associates Who Publicly Criticized Glantz and His Tobacco-Related Work, 1990–1997

TABLE 1 Known Tobacco Industry Consultants and Associates Who Publicly Criticized Glantz and His Tobacco-Related Work, 1990–1997

NameField of ExpertiseAffiliationRelationship With Tobacco Industry and Criticism of Glantz
Decker, Walter J.ToxicologyToxicology Consultant Services, El Paso, TX, a subcontractor to Holcomb Environmental ServicesWorked for Holcomb Environmental Services (Tobacco Institute consultant and contractor); wrote letter to the editor of Circulation criticizing Glantz and Parmley in 1990.19,20
DiLorenzo, ThomasEconomicsUniversity of Tennessee, Chattanooga, later of Loyola College, Baltimore, MDProduced books funded by RJ Reynolds21,22 that supported industry goal of reducing the influence of health charities; joined in attack on Glantz on 1995 TV show Technopolitics.23
Ecobichon, DonaldToxicologyMcGill University, Quebec, QCTobacco Institute scientific witness and consultant; wrote letter to the editor of the New York Times criticizing Glantz and Parmley in 1990.20
Evans, K. MichaelEconomicsEvans, Carroll & Associates (formerly Evans Economics), Boca Raton, FL; Northwestern University, Evanston, ILResearch subcontractor for National Smokers Alliance24; produced the 1997 “Evans Report” criticizing Glantz and Smith's 1994 study of economic effects of smoking restrictions.25
Flamm, GaryToxicologyScience Regulatory Services International, Washington, DCTobacco Institute scientific witness and consultant; wrote letter to the New York Times criticizing coverage of Glantz and Parmley's research on SHS and cardiac disease in 199026; contributed to Tobacco Institute comments submitted to EPA opposing Glantz and Parmley's chapter of the EPA's technical compendium on SHS.27
Fleiss, JosephBiostatisticsColumbia University, New York, NYTobacco Institute scientific witness and consultant; sent editorial to the New York Times criticizing Glantz and Parmley in 1990.20
Gori, Gio BattaToxicology, epidemiologyHealth Policy Center, Bethesda, MDTobacco Institute SHS consultant; wrote letter to the editor of the New York Times criticizing Glantz and Parmley in 1990.20
Handman, StevenUnknownAmerican Smokers Alliance 130/10 Club, Holland, KYRan American Smokers Alliance 1988–1999,28,29 a smokers’-rights group organized and supported by Philip Morris; organized 130/10 Club (a subset of American Smokers Alliance) that took out ad against Glantz in the Washington Times, 1995.
Holcomb, LarryZoologyHolcomb Environmental Services, Olivet, MITobacco Institute scientific witness, consultant, and contractor; wrote letter to editor of Circulation criticizing Glantz and Parmley in 1990; subcontracted critiques from Pedelty & Decker in 1991.30
Huber, Gary L.PulmonologyHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, later University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Tyler, TXTobacco industry consultant31(pp320–321); performed paid research for the industry3234; published a letter critiquing Glantz and Parmley in Circulation in 1991.35
Hull, SallyUnknownMissouri Department of Agriculture, Jefferson City, MODescribed as a tobacco industry “grower ally” by Philip Morris36,37; researcher for American Smokers Alliance, 1995.38
Humber, ThomasPublic RelationsBrown & Williamson, 1981–1986; Philip Morris 1990; senior VP Burson Marsteller 1991–1993; president and CEO National Smokers Alliance, 1993–1997, Alexandria, VAPresident and CEO of National Smokers Alliance 1993–1997, a grassroots lobbying group established by public-relations firm Burson Marstellar and financed by Philip Morris3942; wrote letters to UCSF, OSHA, and periodicals criticizing Glantz40,4345; organized lawsuit against Glantz and UCSF by Californians for Scientific Integrity in 1997.46
Kilpatrick, JamesBiostatisticsMedical College of Virginia, Richmond, VATobacco Institute scientific witness and consultant; wrote letter to editor of the New York Times criticizing Glantz and Parmley in 1990.26
Lee, Peter N.Statistics, epidemiologyPeter Lee Statistics and Computing, Surrey, EnglandTobacco Institute statistical consultant; prepared and submitted letters critical of Glantz's work to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.4751
Mantel, NathanMathematics, statisticsAmerican University, Bethesda, MDTobacco Institute statistical consultant31(pp413–416),52,53; published article in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology criticizing Glantz and Parmley.54
Pedelty, JoeChemistry, biologyHolcomb Environmental Services, Olivet, MIWorked for Holcomb Environmental Services (Tobacco Institute consultant and contractor); wrote letter to editor of Ft Worth, TX, Star-Telegram criticizing Glantz and Parmley.30,55
Perske, MarthaIllustratorAmerican Smokers Alliance, Nashville, TNRepresentative of and researcher for American Smokers Alliance56; took media training at RJ Reynolds57; wrote letter to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology defending Mantel's critique of Glantz, 199358; communicated with RJ Reynolds scientists 1995–199659,60; forwarded Ronhovdee report critical of Glantz to industry public-relations contractor and field organizer S. Caldeira in 199561; wrote letter critical of Glantz to JAMA, 1996.62
Sepp, PeteUnknownNational Taxpayers Union, Alexandria, VASpokesman for National Taxpayers Union, which was a recipient of Philip Morris funding63 and was listed as a Philip Morris ally64; criticized NCI funding of Glantz in a 1995 the Washington Times article.65
Thompson, CarlUnknownFerret Research, Auburn, CADisseminated report in 1994 accusing Glantz of false and misleading research; issued 1994 press release accusing Glantz of misusing taxpayer funds.66,67
Will, James A.Veterinary medicineUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, WIContributed to Tobacco Institute comments submitted to EPA criticizing Glantz and Parmley's chapter of EPA's technical compendium on SHS, 1990.27
Wexler, Lawrence M.EpidemiologyNew York Medical College, Valhalla, NYContributed to Tobacco Institute comments submitted to EPA criticizing Glantz and Parmley's chapter of EPA's technical compendium on SHS, 1990.27,68
Wu, Joseph M.Biochemistry, molecular biologyNew York Medical College, Valhalla, NYTobacco Institute consultant and scientific witness; wrote letter to editor of the New York Times criticizing Glantz and Parmley, 1990.20

Note. SHS = secondhand smoke. EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency. UCSF = University of California, San Francisco. OSHA = US Occupational Safety and Health Administration. NCI = National Cancer Institute.

The figure of 37 000 cardiac deaths per year from SHS was featured prominently in a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) technical compendium69 on SHS published as a supplement to an EPA risk assessment of passive smoking, lung cancer, and respiratory disease.70 When a draft of the compendium was released 5 months after the New York Times story, tobacco companies raised a furor11,71 and the EPA distanced itself from the figures.72,73 On June 6, 1990, tobacco industry ally Representative Thomas Bliley (R, VA) wrote the following to the administrator of the EPA: “Stanton Glantz … advanced the outlandish claim, which is plainly unsupported by credible scientific evidence, that 30 000 non-smoking Americans die of heart disease each year as a result of exposure to ETS [environmental tobacco smoke, the industry's term for secondhand smoke]. Such activity makes a mockery of EPA's procedures.”71 Bliley subsequently helped implement political and administrative tactics designed by tobacco company Philip Morris USA—its “sand in the gears” strategy11,74(p6011)—that delayed EPA's risk assessment for 2.5 years, until December 1992.11 The EPA never published the technical compendium.

In January 1991, Glantz and Parmley published the research they presented at the 1990 Conference on Lung Health in the journal Circulation.14 The article generated another wave of news coverage75 and provoked another round of industry damage control. Initially, industry spokespeople openly challenged Glantz and Parmley in the popular press.76,77 The director of smoking and health for tobacco company RJ Reynolds sent a letter to the editor of many newspapers78 calling Glantz a “back door prohibitionist” who was “scaring the American public with outlandish claims that are simply not supported by scientific fact.” (RJ Reynolds' public relations agency, Hill & Knowlton, had found the “back door prohibition” message to be most effective with the public.79) After 1991, the industry moved from direct criticism to using third parties (Table 1).

Tobacco Institute consultant Joseph Wu, PhD, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at New York Medical College, drafted 3 versions of a letter to submit to Circulation that were critical of Glantz's work and faxed them to tobacco industry law firm Covington & Burling, seeking suggestions.8084 Wu submitted his letter to Circulation without disclosing his role as a tobacco industry consultant,85 and even though Circulation rejected Wu's letter, the Institute still paid him $3867 for writing it86 (out of $20 000 the Institute had budgeted to pay Wu in 1991 to criticize Glantz's work87). The Institute continued to pay consulting fees to Wu, including $72 275 during the 1995–1996 fiscal year88 (the only year for which a record of Wu's total payments were available).

Consultant Larry Holcomb, PhD, billed the Institute $3825 ($225 per hour) to produce a response to the Circulation paper.30 Holcomb argued that Glantz and Parmley drew stronger conclusions than were warranted and that the studies failed to control for confounding variables like diet. Another Institute consultant, Walter Decker, PhD, wrote Circulation a letter arguing that the studies Glantz and Parmley examined were methodologically flawed, and he criticized Glantz and Parmley for including studies published in foreign languages. Decker billed Holcomb $175 per hour for writing his letter,89 which Holcomb then billed to the Tobacco Institute.89 (Chemist and biologist Joe Pedelty, MSc, also billed Holcomb $2975 for writing a letter, although we could not determine whether that letter was submitted to Circulation.) In all, 3 letters19,90,91 appeared in Circulation criticizing Glantz and Parmley's work. All 3 were generated by the tobacco industry, but only 1 disclosed that fact.91

In August 1992, American University biostatistician Nathan Mantel, PhD, published an article in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology54 that criticized the Circulation paper. (The editor of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Alvan Feinstein, MD, was a long-time recipient of tobacco industry funds through its secret lawyer-managed “special accounts.”31[p330],92) In 1991, Mantel invoiced Philip Morris $135 065 for work on SHS. A Philip Morris attorney later reported to Philip Morris' Scientific Affairs Department that “Mantel offered [to write] a response to Glantz and Parmley for approximately $60 000. We have declined the offer for budgetary reasons.”93

The industry also funded statistical consultant Peter Lee,94 MA, to criticize published studies linking smoking, SHS, and disease.31,95 Over the years, Lee wrote editorials, articles, and letters to the editor criticizing Glantz and other researchers who published epidemiological studies on the health effects of SHS.48,50,51,96,97 Lee billed Covington & Burling from $750 to $4000 per piece for criticizing Glantz's work,50,51,97 and he made at least $7750 between 1992 and 1993 doing so.

In 1994, Glantz won a 3-year, $598 686 (total costs) grant from the NCI to evaluate the effects of state and local advocacy on tobacco-control policy.98 Glantz designed these activities to address needs identified in the 1989 US Surgeon General's report,99 which called for research on tobacco industry lobbying activities and their effects on public health policy. One of the 5 project areas included in this grant involved tracking tobacco industry campaign contributions to state legislators and correlating them with legislators’ behavior on tobacco issues.

A Philip Morris plan, written after the NCI grant was awarded, discussed Philip Morris' concern with researchers “who are … conducting research which is faulty” and who “generate considerable media coverage of these studies.”100 It noted that “the lack of rigorous challenge” to this research “creates an on-going problem for PM and the industry,” and it stated, “We must change the environment.”100 The plan specifically focused on Glantz (the only researcher mentioned in the plan) and his NCI grant, saying that his grant “does nothing to advance the common goal of finding cures for cancer” and “it is anti-business and anti-jobs.” Philip Morris proposed100 to alter what it perceived as a troublesome scientific environment by “raising the issue of [scientists’] credibility and their integrity.” The plan, titled “Action Plan: Scientists,” proposed “exposing … scientists who engage in shoddy research to their peers and in the media,” and it noted that “scientists are very concerned about the opinions their peers hold of them and their research.”100 The plan proposed “elevat[ing] the issue of public funding (primarily federal) to conduct anti-tobacco … research”100 and using third parties to run advertisements attacking scientists:

First, we can take out ads in appropriate scientific journals that point out the flaw(s) in the study in question. While the issue of whose name appears in the ad's disclaimer is a subject for future discussion, there is no doubt that the careful use of these ads would be extremely embarrassing to those scientists whose methodology, data and conclusions are demonstrably wrong.100 (Emphasis added.)

Philip Morris' action plan also proposed writing to “the [scientists’] appropriate dean or department head raising questions about the validity of a scientists’ work.”100 The plan repeatedly emphasized the need to “become more proactive, utilizing credible third parties more effectively … [and] encourage more participation by credible, third parties… . [W]e must use credible third-parties more effectively and more creatively to help carry our messages.”100 Activities were to be carried out quietly to avoid drawing attention to Philip Morris:

We can and should reach out to our allies on Capitol Hill, particularly those serving on authorizing and appropriations committees. With the Republican takeover of the House and Senate, the message to the [government public health] agencies must be: “funding sloppy tobacco research is no longer ‘cost-free.’” … Strategically, however, we must always be careful of the danger of raising tobacco's profile on Capitol Hill.100 (Emphasis added.)

Philip Morris' actions, taken in concert with those of RJ Reynolds and others, indicate that the Philip Morris plan was implemented. Table 2 indicates the correlation between Philip Morris' Action Plan and events that actually occurred.

Table

TABLE 2 Strategies Listed in Philip Morris' Draft “Action Plan: Scientists” and Events Involving Glantz, 1991–1997

TABLE 2 Strategies Listed in Philip Morris' Draft “Action Plan: Scientists” and Events Involving Glantz, 1991–1997

Philip Morris Action Plan100Actual Events
“We can prepare and place letters to the editor [criticizing scientists] in appropriate scientific journals, including those the work was published in, and other leading journals.”1991: Tobacco Institute consultants Decker and Holcomb publish letters criticizing Glantz and Parmley's article in Circulation. Other Institute contractors write letters to the New York Times criticizing coverage of Glantz and Parmley's research. Industry consultants Gori, Kilpatrick, Wu, Pedelty, Ecobichon, and Lee draft letters and op-ed pieces critical of Glantz for journals and newspapers.
1992: Mantel publishes letter critical of Glantz and Parmley's Circulation article in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
“Elevate the issue of using public funds (primarily federal) to conduct anti-tobacco … research.”February 1995: Marty Ronhovdee, a member of the Philip Morris–funded American Smokers Alliance, composes and widely circulates a report critical of Glantz and his NCI funding.
“[W]e can take out ads …that point out the flaws of the study in question… . [T]here is no doubt that the careful use of these ads would be extremely embarrassing to those scientists whose methodology, data and conclusions are demonstrably wrong.”March 14, 1995: The Washington Times runs a 130/10 Club ad attacking Glantz and NCI.101
“It should be noted that public interest groups like Common Cause already conduct this kind of study every year and release the results at no cost to the public.”May 28, 1995: A Washington Times editorial says, “Only weeks ago Common Cause published an analysis of tobacco industry contributions and voting patterns in Congress. For the cost of a 32-cent stamp, NCI could have requested a copy of this study and saved taxpayers $599 999.68.”102
“The issue of public funding, especially federal funding, should become an issue we pursue in the legislative arena. For example, the National Cancer Institute's $600 000 grant to Stanton Glantz … does nothing to advance the common goal of finding cures for cancer.”August 9, 1995: Representative John Porter (R, IL) says, “[Glantz's] study … focuses on the political process and those who lobby legislatures on tobacco issues… . This is not clinical or behavioral research and should not have been funded by NCI.”103
Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union says, “When most people think of the National Cancer Institute, they think of people in lab coats looking for a cure for lung cancer… . [A] study that's so politically charged should not be the purview of a disease research agency.”65
“We can and should reach out to our allies on Capitol Hill, particularly those serving on authorizing and appropriations committees.”December 5, 1995: Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds work with Representative Porter (who is on the House Appropriations committee) to block Glantz's NCI funding. An internal Philip Morris memo says, “[John Fish of RJ Reynolds] … advises that … [Representative] Porter's … [office has] assured him that the labor-HHS Appropriations continuing resolution will include language to prohibit funding for Glantz.”104
“[W]e can send a letter to the [scientist's] appropriate dean or department head raising questions about the validity of a scientist's work.”April 23, 1997: Thomas Humber, president of the National Smokers Alliance, writes to University of California president Richard Atkinson attacking Glantz's integrity and competence regarding his 1994 published study on the economic effects of smoking restrictions.43

Note. NCI = National Cancer Institute. HHS = US Department of Health and Human Services.

In February 1995, Marty Ronhovdee,38 a researcher for the American Smokers Alliance, compiled and circulated a report critical of Glantz and his grant, portraying NCI as misusing taxpayers’ money to fund a “witch hunt” and diverting funds away from its “primary obligation” to conduct cancer research.105 (The American Smokers Alliance was formed when Philip Morris spent $10 000 to bring 40 smokers to an initial meeting in Atlanta, Georgia.28 After the organization was formed, Philip Morris provided it with a 10 000-name mailing list106 and at least $35 000 in 1994 and 1995 for “grassroots mobilization.”107,108) As an example of NCI's so-called misuse of taxpayers’ money, Ronhovdee cited Glantz's research on the influence that tobacco industry campaign contributions might have on state legislators’ policymaking behavior. (Subsequent research established that this influence existed.109112) The Ronhovdee report conformed to the strategy Philip Morris explicated in its action plan to generate opposition to public funding of tobacco-control research.100

Ronhovdee circulated her report to other smokers’ rights activists, including Martha Perske and Jackie Miller.113 Nominally an independent smokers’ rights advocate, Perske completed media training at RJ Reynolds57and was in direct contact with RJ Reynolds employees and representatives.59,60,114118 Perske wrote letters to academic journals, newspapers, and legislators to advance industry views on SHS and forwarded any replies she received to RJ Reynolds.119,120 When Glantz and Parmley121 responded to Nathan Mantel's 1992 paper in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology by pointing out Mantel's relationship with the tobacco industry, the journal's editor published a personal defense of Mantel written by Perske.58 Perske also forwarded information to public-relations firm Walt Klein & Associates of Winston-Salem, North Carolina,122 who contracted with RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris to organize grassroots opposition to smoking restrictions,3 promote industry “youth smoking prevention” programs,123 and organize front groups like the Coalition for Responsible Retailing to fight cigarette tax increases.124126 Miller was vice president of the Florida Smokers Rights Association, a group managed by an RJ Reynolds public-issues field coordinator.127 The Ronhovdee report was also sent to an RJ Reynolds employee who was president of the North Carolina Smokers Rights Association,128 who circulated it within RJ Reynolds.129

Shortly after Ronhovdee circulated her report, an ad101 appeared in the Washington Times on March 14, 1995, attacking Glantz and his NCI grant (Figure 1). The ad reflected Philip Morris' strategy, outlined in its action plan, to have third parties run ads to embarrass scientists.100 The ad copy asked readers to clip the ad from the newspaper, write a short personal note at the bottom of it, and mail it to their congressperson. The ad copy identified the ad's sponsor as “the 130/10 Club, a group of citizens who chip in $10 a month to expose government waste and express our opinions to the government.”101 The ad gave no other information about the 130/10 Club, which was operated by Steve Handman, president of the Philip Morris–supported American Smokers Alliance. A Philip Morris representative denied any involvement in “this Glantz effort” to USA Today.130

On April 11, 1995 (3.5 weeks after the 130/10 Club ad appeared), the Washington Times ran an article attacking Glantz's NCI grant, calling it overly political and inappropriate for the NCI.65 The article quoted a spokesman for Representative John Porter (R, IL), chair of the House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the NCI's budget, who said, “NCI has gone beyond its mandate to conduct clinical and behavioral research regarding cancer” and should not have funded the grant. (The global headquarters of Kraft Foods, then a Philip Morris subsidiary, is located in Porter's congressional district.) The Washington Times also quoted the National Taxpayers Union's criticism of the grant. (Philip Morris supported the National Taxpayers Union131,132 as part of a strategy to enlist antitax groups as third-party allies to carry out letter-writing campaigns that would “raise havoc” and “generate some real heat in the field.”133) A headline in the American Smokers Alliance's spring 1995 newsletter56 boasted that “ASA Letters and Ads [from the 130/10 Club] Ignite Federal Action on NCI” and included a reprint of the Times article.

On April 12, 1995, the day after the Washington Times article ran, Senator Wendell Ford (R, KY), a strong tobacco industry supporter,134 wrote a harsh letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, whose department includes the NCI, protesting Glantz's grant. Ford called the grant “an extravagant handout” and asked Shalala to halt the spending of the remainder of the grant that had “not already been wasted.”135 Shalala responded by defending Glantz's NCI grant,136 stating that it was well within NCI's mandate.

In late 1994, an employee of the Missouri Department of Agriculture and researcher for the American Smokers Alliance, whom Philip Morris considered to be a “grower ally,”36 sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the NCI for information about Glantz's grant application. (The American Smokers Alliance encouraged members to act as researchers, specifically instructing them to use the Freedom of Information Act.38) The employee obtained Glantz's NCI grant information and forwarded it to Walt Klein & Associates, who in turn sent it to RJ Reynolds' external relations office.137 In March 1995, RJ Reynolds enlisted Walt Klein & Associates to foster and augment the appearance of a public clamor to remove Glantz's funding. The public relations firm drafted several op-ed pieces criticizing Glantz's work as “bogus” and “deeply flawed” and demanding that the NCI terminate his funding.138140 We were unable to determine whether any of these op-ed pieces were published.

On August 28, 1995, an article titled “Policing P[olitical] C[orrectness]: How the government is stacking the deck in the debate over smoking”141 was published in the National Review, a magazine of conservative opinion.142 The article attacked Glantz and his NCI funding, portraying him as a prohibitionist and calling his NCI funding a “gross abuse of bureaucratic authority.” A short biosketch of the author, Thomas DiLorenzo, PhD, described him only as “a professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.”141 Prior to publishing “Policing PC,” DiLorenzo had worked on a number of tobacco industry projects, including a Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds–funded project at the Independent Institute (a tobacco industry–funded think tank143), and contributed to publications by the Capital Research Center (another think tank, described as a “long-time friend of PM” in a 1998 internal Philip Morris e-mail144).

The same month that the “Policing PC” article was published, James Bennett of George Mason University billed RJ Reynolds $150 000 for work he and DiLorenzo were doing on a book titled CancerScam: The Diversion of Federal Cancer Funds to Politics.22 This book, published in 1997, attacked government-funded health agencies and health charities, charging that they were deviating from their missions and using donated funds irresponsibly by engaging in excessive political and lobbying activity.145 The book specifically attacked Glantz, claiming he was “getting rich” by using tax funds for lobbying.145 CancerScam conformed to Philip Morris' action plan by “elevating the issue of public funding (primarily federal) to conduct anti-tobacco … research”100 and accusing government agencies and health charities of diverting funding away from “the common goal of finding a cure for cancer.”100 DiLorenzo also made a Freedom of Information Act request for information about Glantz's NCI grant, and he forwarded the information received from NCI to Philip Morris' law firm Arnold and Porter in 1995. The firm forwarded the information to the director of Philip Morris' Washington relations office.146

On July 15, 1995, a few weeks before his National Review article was published, DiLorenzo appeared on the Philip Morris–supported147149 PBS television program Technopolitics, hosted by James Glassman. (Philip Morris had liaisons assigned to Technopolitics and National Review as part of its “Managing the Message—Conservative Media Cultivation” effort.150) The single topic of the half-hour Technopolitics show was Glantz's NCI grant. On the show, DiLorenzo described Glantz's NCI grant as the “government paying citizens to spy on other citizens” and called it “atrocious.” He concluded, “Every dollar that is spent on these political gadflies is not spent on basic cancer research,”23 yet another statement that reflected Philip Morris' plan to claim that Glantz's NCI research “does nothing to advance the common goal of finding cures for cancer.”100 From 1993 to 1995 Philip Morris donated $630 000147149 to South Carolina Educational Television to support Technopolitics. The 1994 contribution was one of Philip Morris' largest “charitable contributions” that year.151

While laying the groundwork to create the appearance of a grassroots demand to cut Glantz's NCI funding, the tobacco industry was also working to influence the federal budget appropriations mechanism to terminate Glantz's funding.152 In July 1995, language appeared in a House Appropriations Committee report that set the scene for eliminating Glantz's project in the upcoming NCI appropriations bill. The language focused on a relatively small part of Glantz's overall project (albeit the part to which legislators were likely to be particularly sensitive). It said:

The Committee was disturbed to learn that NCI had funded a research grant studying tobacco industry campaign contributions to State legislators and voting records by those individuals on tobacco control initiatives. While the Committee is not rendering judgment on the merits of the grant proposal, it feels strongly that such research projects do not properly fall within the boundaries of the NCI portfolio.153

The only grant the language could have possibly referred to was Glantz's NCI grant.

When the appropriations bill containing NCI's funding for the next fiscal year came to a vote in the House of Representatives on August 4, 1995, it included language (inserted into a subcommittee report) that would specifically strip Glantz of his NCI funding. The legislative affairs manager at the Tobacco Institute described the event in a memo she sent to RJ Reynolds' public affairs divisions the same day:

Early this morning the House passed HR 2127, the Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations [bill] for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education [including NCI]… . Several items of interest to the industry are included in the bill. Funding for the Office of the Surgeon General would be eliminated… . In the House Appropriations Committee Report is language withholding further funding for the National Cancer Institute's grant to Stanton Glantz for an investigation of the tobacco voting records of, and campaign contributions to state legislators.154

Glantz learned of the attack on his NCI funding from a member of his research staff, whose sister was interning for a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee. On August 2, 1995, Glantz sent a letter to colleagues alerting them about the ongoing political effort to halt his project. He pointed out that, if allowed to continue, this kind of legislative action would have the potential to cut off all future research that the tobacco industry considered threatening.155 Word spread about the highly specific amendment to kill Glantz's project, and news media began reporting on it, including a Chicago Sun-Times article on August 9, 1995, which read, “In a rare intervention, Rep. John Porter (R-Ill.) directed the National Cancer Institute to halt funding of research on how the tobacco industry helps shape the law.”103

Three days after the Sun-Times article appeared, Philip Morris' Washington relations office was planning its next step: pushing the attack on Glantz's NCI funding through the Senate. An internal Philip Morris memo reads, “What are [our] prospects for … eliminating funding for Glantz's NCI political study, etc.? Who is the industry's horse in the Senate, if anyone, to push what we got in the House [emphasis added]?”156 Another note sent to high-level officials in Philip Morris—including the senior vice president and associate general counsel (Charles Wall); Philip Morris' Worldwide Regulatory Affairs office; the senior vice president of executive affairs (Steve Parrish); secretary and general counsel and members of Philip Morris' board of directors, vice president and associate general counsel; vice president of Philip Morris' State Government Affairs office; and staff in Philip Morris' Washington Relations office—indicates that the industry worked cooperatively to have Glantz's funding removed: “Attached is a status report on industry efforts concerning the NCI grant to Glantz… . We will keep you posted as this develops [emphasis added].”157

As the industry's attention shifted to the Senate, a memo titled “National Cancer Institute Grant to Stanton Glantz” was sent within Philip Morris' Washington relations office in December 1995. The memo reads, in part: “I sent copies of [Glantz's NCI grant application] to Brad Edwards [legislative assistant to Senator Jesse Helms (R, NC)] and Matt Rapp [of the public relations firm Burson Marstellar]. I plan to discuss with them a strategy to deal with a motion to strike the Porter language in the Senate.”104 A 1995 outline describing Tobacco Institute committees and projects shows that the Institute formed a multicompany “Appropriations Working Group” to find ways to manipulate the legislative appropriations process to stop a wide range of federal tobacco control–related activities, including Glantz's grant.158 Core members of the Group were RJ Reynolds' vice president of federal government affairs; Philip Morris Management Corporation's director of federal tobacco issues; the vice president of federal government relations in the public affairs department of US Tobacco Company; a partner and member of an industry legislative team at tobacco industry law firm Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin and Oshinsky; and lobbying firm Hecht, Spencer & Oglesby.

In December 1995, Philip Morris law firm Arnold and Porter sent a “privileged and confidential” letter to Philip Morris reporting that it was “preparing a memorandum identifying options for challenging the award of the …Glantz grant.”159 The firm also sent the letter to a Philip Morris corporate attorney in January 1996.160 The options Arnold and Porter identified are not public because the memorandum containing the options remains privileged, but from the activities that ensued during 1995–1996 legislative appropriations process, it appears that the companies pursued Philip Morris' “Action Plan,” especially the strategy to “reach out to our allies on Capitol Hill, particularly those serving on authorizing and appropriations committees.”100

The potential ramifications of the legislators’ actions—i.e., the inhibition of publicly funded research opposed by the tobacco industry—troubled many in the public health community and in the broader academic community. The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the San Francisco Medical Society, tobacco-prevention coalitions, doctors, attorneys, medical clinic employees, researchers, public health advocates, and prominent academics across the country generated letters and petitions to House and Senate members supporting Glantz and expressing outrage at the federal legislature's interference in NCI's peer-review process. Under the guidance of the Public Media Center, a nonprofit public interest advertising firm in San Francisco, a group of 29 prominent physicians and academics (including former US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop) signed an opinion page advertisement161 that ran in the October 16, 1995, New York Times defending Glantz and decrying Representative Porter's actions on behalf of the tobacco industry (Figure 2). The president of the American Cancer Society, John Seffrin, personally intervened in the matter of Glantz's NCI grant by mobilizing pressure on Porter in his home district to abandon the effort to target the grant.

On April 24, 1996, the House Appropriations subcommittee held formal hearings on the issue, and Richard Klausner, the new NCI director, told the subcommittee that NCI had ceased funding the portion of Glantz's grant involving campaign contributions.162 (The grant was not cut; these funds were shifted to the grant's other aims.) This action appeared to satisfy the subcommittee. The American Cancer Society made a $74 000 grant to Glantz to fund the aim dropped from the NCI grant, and the work continued.

Industry attempts to end Glantz's funding did not stop. An August 7, 1996, e-mail from Philip Morris' director of federal tobacco issues to Charles Wall, the company's vice president and associate general counsel, reveals that the industry continued pushing to stop NCI funds from going to Glantz, using the same “report language” strategy:

[An RJ Reynolds lobbyist] and I contacted Congressman Henry Bonilla's staffer today about the Glantz grant. She was surprised, especially since she was in the meeting between the head of NCI and Bonilla when it was agreed that NCI would not be funding these type of projects… . Bonilla's staffer will communicate with Labor/HHS appropriations subcommittee Chairman John Porter and his staff to express their concern and discuss a recommended plan of attack… . Have Porter's subcommittee staff investigate whether it would be more prudent to push for report language which would restrict NCI's ability to use funds for these types of grants in the Senate… . Bottom line: determine if report language at Senate or conference level is a viable option. I will meet with Congressman … Hoyer's [a friendly Democrat on the subcommittee] staff to solicit his support for a report language strategy that Bonilla and Porter have signed off on.163

In 1994, Glantz and Smith published in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) the first comprehensive study of the economic effects of banning smoking in restaurants.164 The study showed that there was no significant change in restaurant revenues associated with smoke-free environment ordinances. This result directly contradicted the tobacco industry's claim that these laws hurt the hospitality business, an argument they used to frighten members of the hospitality industry into fighting local smoke-free environment ordinances.165167

Philip Morris viewed the 1994 restaurant study as a threat. A 1994 Philip Morris internal report discussing how to spread Philip Morris' “Accommodation Program” (a program to stave off smoking restrictions165) lists a number of difficulties Philip Morris faced at the time, among them the fact that “Stanton Glantz [is] using funding to distribute research stating that there is no negative impact of smoking bans on restaurant sales… . Research widely distributed and viewed as credible.”168 In February 1994, a firm called Ferret Research of Auburn, California, produced a report declaring that Glantz and Smith's 1994 study was “empirically false … misleading and potentially harmful to businesses.”66 The Ferret report was not published in a journal, but it was promoted through a press release that also objected to the fact that the restaurant study had been partly funded by the California Tobacco Related Diseases Research Program.67 (This grant laid the foundation for Glantz's later grant from NCI.)

After the Ferret report, attacks on Glantz’ work quieted until 1997, when Glantz and Smith updated their 1994 study to include communities with laws requiring smoke-free bars.169,170 They reported that, similar to smoke-free restaurant ordinances, smoke-free bar ordinances had no detectable effect on bar revenues. The findings were published in the July 1997 issue of AJPH and received wide press coverage.171 That same year, Glantz and Smith's 1994 study suddenly began drawing harsh criticism from the National Smokers Alliance, a smokers’-rights group created by the public relations firm Burson Marsteller for Philip Morris.172,173 In March 1997, the National Smokers Alliance paid Chicago economic consultant Michael Evans $10 00024 to critique Glantz and Smith's 1994 study.25 Evans said that Glantz and Smith's conclusions were “unwarranted” and “based on faulty assumptions in methodology.”25 Rather than submitting his critique to AJPH, Evans's critique was presented at a National Smokers Alliance press conference on April 24, 1997.

Soon after the press conference, Thomas Humber, president of the National Smokers Alliance and a former senior vice president of Burson Marsteller, wrote a letter to the president of the University of California citing Evans's critique and complaining that Glantz and Smith's 1994 restaurant study “has been used as a major lobbying tool throughout the United States to convince government officials that they can enact restaurant smoking bans with no adverse economic consequences… . [Q]uestions have been raised by Dr. Evans’ review that are serious enough to warrant seeking the return of taxpayer dollars [from California's Tobacco Related Disease Research Program] from the authors of the study.”43 At the same time, Humber sent a letter to AJPH editor Mervyn Susser complaining that Glantz and Smith had “misrepresented the premises for the study” and used “flawed methodology” to reach their conclusions. Humber asked AJPH to “reopen the Glantz/Smith study for editorial review.”44 Susser responded by sending Evans’ critique out for peer review. After considering the reviewers’ responses, Susser answered Humber with an editorial in the October 1997 issue of AJPH:

Evans makes a show of reexamining the available data in much detail. Instead of a compelling critique, however, we find a mélange of scientifically inadmissible manipulations of data to obtain a desired result. These are conflated with a flurry of suppositions as to what could be. Suppositions are then translated by mere assertion into factual “serious” flaws. Even if the Evans critique can pass in the field of economics for legitimate science—something I do not credit—it cannot pass in this Journal. Certainly, no economist has submitted so tendentious and meretricious an argument during my tenure.174

Glantz and Smith published minor corrections to their article (which did not affect their conclusions) in an erratum in AJPH.170

Despite Susser's editorial and the erratum, Humber started laying groundwork for a lawsuit against Glantz, alleging misuse of tax revenues. Humber sent a letter to California members of the National Smokers Alliance, asking them to join the newly created Californians for Scientific Integrity.45 The letter stated that Glantz had conducted a “particularly offensive” research project “paid for with your tax dollars” that “totally misrepresents the economic losses suffered by restaurants when they are forced by governments to restrict smoking.”45 Humber invited readers to “force Dr. Glantz to return all the misspent money to the fund” and said law firm Zumbrun and Findley would handle “all the appropriate actions.” Zumbrun and Findley principal Ronald Zumbrun was the founder of the Sacramento-based conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, which Philip Morris External Affairs listed as a “strategic key ally”175 that received money from both Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds.176,177 Participants who joined the effort “won't have to write letters, make phone calls, or attend meetings” or incur any financial cost or legal liability to “focus attention on the abuses of anti-smoking zealots who are living off your money,” the letter said.45

Concurrently, the National Smokers Alliance petitioned the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to cancel its consulting contract with Glantz, who was assisting with efforts to restrict smoking in the workplace.178 The Alliance cited Evans's critique and called for an investigation into work Glantz had done for OSHA.179 OSHA did not cancel its contract with Glantz or investigate his work.

On July 1, 1997, Californians for Scientific Integrity sued the University of California, the California Department of Health Services, and the California Department of Education in California Superior Court, charging Glantz with engaging in scientific misconduct at taxpayer expense by intentionally misrepresenting the data in his 1994 restaurant study.179 The University's response brief argued, in part:

The true agenda of this action was patently obvious—to muzzle scientists whose research publications and speech on subjects relating to tobacco, tobacco control and the politics of tobacco have been a thorn in the side of the industry for decades. The danger of this type of lawsuit cannot be overestimated. It is an obvious attempt to intimidate and silence a bothersome critic of a wealthy and powerful industry. The University of California should be a place where such controversial figures, whatever their views, may research, publish and speak, free from intimidation and harassment of the type this lawsuit represents.180

On November 20, 1997, the Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that there was no legal basis for a claim against the University.181 Californians for Scientific Integrity unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court. While the University prevailed in the lawsuit and on subsequent appeals, University personnel had to invest substantial time and effort fending off aggressive discovery, preparing for and giving depositions, and preparing court filings.

Philip Morris' draft document titled “Action Plan: Scientists”100 was a road map to guide efforts to shut down public policy–oriented research. Actions subsequently taken by the tobacco industry and its agents and affiliates followed the plan: distribution of an inflammatory “report” asserting Glantz's supposed misuse of taxpayer funds; use of smokers’-rights and antitax groups to create the appearance of a public clamor against the research; a third party taking out an attack ad in an influential newspaper; tobacco industry third-party allies criticizing the research; news articles and a television show attacking Glantz and his research; letters critical of Glantz being sent to legislators and government officials; and manipulation of the legislative appropriations system to stop his funding.

A December 2003 article in Washington Monthly182 credited Technopolitics host Jim Glassman with developing a new public relations technique called “journo-lobbying,” in which slightly different versions of an industry's preferred message are repeatedly broadcast at legislators from a range of influential sources and through a variety of media to dominate the intellectual environment in which officials make policy decisions. A 1998 Philip Morris memo titled “The Echo Chamber Approach to Advocacy” describes Philip Morris' Washington relations office's use of a similar technique183:

Members of Congress are impacted by multiple “influentials.” … A rough hierarchy has been established as follows, from most influential to least influential: Constituents (unaided), Major Fundraisers, Local Media, Colleagues, National Media, Advertising, Lobbyists. The more a particular view or piece of information “echoes” or resonates through this group, the greater the impact. Grassroots efforts are so effective … because they cause many constituents to repeat the same message to the target Member … You will note that the echo chamber effect can work in two different ways: First, the same message can reverberate among multiple sources toward the target Members… . Second, similar but complementary messages can be repeated by a single source. … Either the repetition or “piling on” approach provide the same result: enhanced credibility and influence of the essential message.183 (Emphasis in original.)

Philip Morris “reached out” to Technopolitics150 and provided significant money to the show.147149 A similar financial relationship existed between Philip Morris and the National Review,184187 which published DiLorenzo's “Policing PC.” Legislators, other policymakers, and public health advocates need to be aware of the “echo chamber” technique and take all possible steps to verify the sources of what may seem at first to be a widely held opinion about an issue.

Many of the strategies that the tobacco industry used to combat Glantz's work mimic the strategies the industry has used to attack other scientists and influence public perceptions.11,12,188,189 For instance, the industry has repeatedly used secretly paid consultants to cast doubt upon the scientific evidence that SHS is dangerous, as happened with the Whitecoat project,190 the Asian ETS Consultants Project,190,191 the Latin project,5 and the ARISE Project10 and in Germany.192,193 Philip Morris also worked through the National Journalism School in Washington, DC, to develop formal programs supporting the training of sympathetic journalists.8 Philip Morris has also used lawsuits to silence and intimidate a number of other critics, as when the company sued Thames Television to prevent distribution of Death in the West194; when the company filed a $10 billion lawsuit against ABC News over a 1994 documentary about nicotine manipulation in cigarettes195; and when the company pursued litigation against people working on the American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST), a large-scale, NCI-supported smoking intervention trial, and other tobacco-control programs for “illegal lobbying.”196

Unfortunately, tobacco industry documents are frequently the only source of information about how the industry addresses what it perceives as the “problem” of scientists who publish research it disagrees with, and the ability to verify information in the documents through other sources is limited. The industry's tendencies toward document destruction may also have left gaps in information.197 Because an author of this paper was the subject of the activities described, our description is open to accusations of bias; however, the author's experience also provides crucial first-hand information.

People who publish research that threatens the tobacco industry's interests and who advocate improved public health policies based on that research may draw intense attention and opposition from the industry. Widespread criticism of a researcher that seems to emanate from a variety of non–tobacco industry sources does not necessarily indicate a lack of tobacco industry involvement, because the industry works to hide its involvement.

The techniques described in this paper were used by the tobacco industry and easily can be used by other industries confronted with issues, including environmental health198and global warming.199 Knowledge of systematic industry harassment of scientists working in a particular field could have a chilling effect on the work of researchers in that field, particularly those who work for smaller institutions or who give a high priority to attracting funding from private industry.200 Support from researchers’ employers and from credible public health organizations (in this instance, the American Cancer Society)—including a willingness to support researchers in fighting litigation and withstanding attacks from political figures and media outlets—is crucial to the continued advancement of science in general and public health in particular.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Cancer Institute (grant CA–87472).

Note. The funding agency played no role in selection of the topic, conduct of the research, or preparation or revision of the article.

Human Participant Protection

This project was conducted in accordance with a protocol approved by the Committee on Human Subjects of the University of California, San Francisco.

References

1. Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Association of the California Tobacco Control Program with declines in cigarette consumption and mortality from heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:17721777. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Barnoya J, Glantz S. Association of the California tobacco control program with declines in lung cancer incidence. Cancer Causes Control. 2004;15:689695. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Traynor MP, Begay ME, Glantz SA. New tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control. JAMA. 1993;270:479486. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Muggli M, Forster J, Hurt R, Repace J. The smoke you don't see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke policies. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:14191423. LinkGoogle Scholar
5. Barnoya J, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry success in preventing regulation of secondhand smoke in Latin America: the “Latin Project.” Tob Control. 2002;11:305314. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Trochim WMK, Stillman FA, Clark PI, Schmitt CL. Development of a model of the tobacco industry's interference with tobacco control programmes. Tob Control. 2003;12:140147. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Landman A, Bialick P. Tobacco industry involvement in Colorado. Denver, Colo: American Lung Association of Colorado; 2004. http://repositories.cdlib.org/tc/reports/CO2004. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
8. Muggli M, Hurt R, Becker L. Turning free speech into corporate speech: Philip Morris’ efforts to influence U.S. and European journalists regarding the US EPA report on secondhand smoke. Prev Med. 2004;39:568580. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Apollonio DE, Bero LA. The creation of industry front groups: the tobacco industry and “get government off our back.” Am J Public Health. 2007;97:419427. LinkGoogle Scholar
10. Landman A, Cortese D, Glantz S. Tobacco industry sociological programs to influence public beliefs about smoking. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:970981. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Muggli ME, Hurt RD, Repace J. The tobacco industry's political efforts to derail the EPA report on ETS. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26:167177. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Bohme S, Zorabedian J, Egilman D. Maximizing profit and endangering health: corporate strategies to avoid litigation and regulation. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2005;11:338348. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Feng WP, Shook HB, Glantz SA. Memorandum between Philip Morris outside litigation counsel regarding research on anti-smoking advocate. June 15, 1990. Bates no. 2021180445/0448. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kqn88d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
14. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease: epidemiology, physiology and biochemistry. Circ. 1991;83:112. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Altman LK. The evidence mounts on passive smoking. New York Times. May 29, 1990:C8. Google Scholar
16. Dawson BM. Untitled letter to the editor of New York Times. Tobacco Institute. May 29, 1990. Bates no. 0015880/5881. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/our22f00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
17. Public Affairs Management Plan Progress Report. July 1990. Tobacco Institute. Bates no. TIMN0313795/3827. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nww52f00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
18. Powers CH. Scientific Witness Program. Tobacco Institute. February 23, 1989. Bates no. TI11871006/1025. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ylk40c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
19. Decker W. Environmental tobacco smoke and cardiac diseases. Circ. August 1991. Bates no. 511794554/4555. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qcp43d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
20. TI ETS/IAQ Consultant Activity 1988–1990. Tobacco Institute. Bates no. TIDN0007059/7110. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cvq91f00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
21. Bennett JT. Research Proposal Health Research Charities and Anti-Smoking Initiatives. December 3, 1990. Bates no. 507787238/7242. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/czi11d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
22. Bennett JT. This letter summarizes our discussion on August 18 regarding our activities during the coming year. George Mason University. August 31, 1995. Bates no. 517118301. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ist03a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
23. WNET-TV. Video Monitoring ServiceTechnopolitics. July 15, 1995. Bates no. 2050984063/4066. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zwz47d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
24. Price J. Economist trashes anti-smokers' study of eatery business. Washington Times. April 24, 1997. Bates no. 2063795189. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yxp87d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
25. Evans MK. Review of “The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants on sales” by Stanton A. Glantz and Lisa R. A. Smith. Evans Group. March 1997. Bates no. 2072300665/0699. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bhx97d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
26. ETS and IAQ Consultants. October 8, 1990. Bates no. 507778674/8690. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qzp14d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
27. Comments of the Tobacco Institute on “Passive smoking and heart disease: epidemiology, physiology and biochemistry,” chapter 11 of a draft of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: A Compendium of Technical Information by the US Environmental Protection Agency. April 6, 1990. Bates no. TI08872900/2909. Available at: http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI08872900.html. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
28. Philip Morris calls for national smokers group. Wall Street Journal. August 2, 1988:35. Google Scholar
29. Handman S. Letter to Janice McDaniel of Philip Morris. American Smokers Alliance. September 12, 1994. Bates no. 2070384887. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nhz37d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
30. Holcomb Environmental Services. Expense report, pay request. February 1, 1991. Bates no. 2029377763/7769. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dnz98e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
31. Glantz S, Slade J, Bero L, Hanauer P, Barnes D. The Cigarette Papers. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1996. Google Scholar
32. Huber GL, Brockie RE. Passive smoking and heart disease. October 1991. Bates no. 508248504/8505. MN. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gra04d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
33. Shinn WW. Request for payment—Harvard Project. Tobacco Institute. August 1978. Bates no. 2010048675. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/evj68e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
34. Shook HB. CTR Special Projects. April 28, 1989. Bates no. 955016020/6022. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hdj51a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
35. Huber GL. Passive smoking and heart disease. Circ. 1991;84:1878. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Philip Morris. Grower Allies. February 2000. Bates no. 2077285641/5642. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hqg76c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
37. Hull S. Question: Is the government funding science or a political movement? February 2, 1995. Bates no. 2046557230. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tgw87d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
38. American Smokers Alliance. ASA Accomplishes! ASA Wants More Researchers! ASA News. Summer 1995. Bates no. 2072087651/7654. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vaj27d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
39. Samuels B, Glantz SA. The politics of local tobacco control. JAMA. 1991;266:21102117. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Humber T. National Smokers Alliance. April 23, 1997. Bates no. 2072300714/0715. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jhx97d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
41. Americans Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. The National Smokers Alliance exposed: a report on the activities of Philip Morris' #1 front group. http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=257. Updated November 2004. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
42. Purcell C. Dear Mr. Humber. Philip Morris. February 14, 1995. Bates no. 2046379817. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cgl38d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
43. Humber T. Letter to Dr. Richard C. Atkinson, President, University of California. National Smokers Alliance. April 23, 1997. Bates no. 190231260/1261. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kar11c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
44. Humber T. Letter to Mervyn Susser. National Smokers Alliance. April 23, 1997. Bates no. 2072419081/9082. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lib42c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
45. Humber T, Members N. Dear Mr. Sample. Mass mailing. May 14, 1997. Bates no. 2077156451/6452. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mzi62c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
46. Humber T. Glantz update. May 28, 1997. Bates no. 2077156434. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vni62c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
47. T.I. ETS Consultant Program Project Status: Project: Letter responding to Glantz in J Clin Epi. Tobacco Institute. July 9, 1993. Bates no. TIMN0435246. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kbw42f00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
48. Packett T. Check request for $24 968.38 for various invoices for ETS work. Tobacco Institute. November 13, 1992. Bates no. TI10161616. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gud40c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
49. Lee PN. Computing PLS. Invoice. September 1, 1992. Bates no. 2023592332. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/euf46e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
50. Lee P. Invoice. P.M. Lee Statistics & Computing. September 1, 1992. Bates no. 2023592583. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/peg46e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
51. Packett T. TI check request for Peter Lee letters to the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Tobacco Institute. July 20, 1993. Bates no. TI01410960. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xfq30c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
52. Buckley MT. Enclosure of Nathan Mantel's invoice. Covington & Burling. August 12, 1992. Bates no. TI10161576. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ovd40c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
53. Buckley MT. Invoice for $15 025. Statistical consulting—autopsy study. Covington & Burling. December 15, 1992. Bates no. TI10161572. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rvd40c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
54. Mantel N. Dubious evidence of heart and cancer deaths due to passive smoking. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:809813. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
55. Pedelty J. Letter to the editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Holcomb Environmental Services. February 5, 1991. Bates no. TITX0037939. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eiy32f00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
56. Alliance AS. ASA letters and ads ignite federal action on NCI: “Agency probes tobacco politics.” April 1995. Bates no. 2046557219/7220. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qgw87d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
57. Phillips M, R.J. Reynolds. United Smokers Association (USA). Jan. 3 1995. Bates no. 511409163/9165. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ksp44a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
58. Perske M. Effects of passive smoking. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(4):408409. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
59. Coggins C, Steichen T. Concerning the Pirkle paper. RJ Reynolds. May 9, 1996. Bates no. 517252763/2764. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cjn01d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
60. Steichen T, Coggins C. We received your query about ETS in the office. RJ Reynolds. September 27, 1995. Bates no. 517252776. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nfu90d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
61. Perske M. Here's Marty Ronhovdee's report on Stanton Glantz's grant from the National Cancer Institute to investigate state legislators in six states (California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington). February 8, 1995. Bates no. 511400994. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lpx90d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
62. Perske M. Letter from M. Perske to the editor of JAMA. July 29, 1996. Bates no. 70011714. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sqt46d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
63. Stone P. The Nicotine Network. Mother Jones. May 1996. Bates no. 2076001185/1187. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ngd55c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
64. National Allies (48). Philip Morris. February 2000. Bates no. 2077285645/5646. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iqg76c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
65. Price J. Agency probes tobacco politics: Cancer institute defends study. Washington Times. April 11, 1995. Bates no. 2048240948/0949. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xwx87e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
66. Ferret Research. Stanton Glantz's Economic Study of Smoking Bans is Flawed. February 1994. Bates no. 2065532198/2201.Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jfu77d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
67. Thompson C. Glantz economic study of smoking bans is flawed. Inaccuracies discovered in widely accepted report. Ferret Research. February 18, 1994. Bates no. 2028446507. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/era24e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
68. Wexler L. Passive smoking and heart disease epidemiology, physiology and biochemistry. April 6, 1990. Bates no. 87808953/8970. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sac40e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
69. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: A Compendium of Technical Information. Report. February 1990. US Environmental Protection Agency, Indoor Air Division, Office of Atmospheric & Indoor Air Program. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fdq02a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
70. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 1992. Google Scholar
71. Bliley TJ. US House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. June 6, 1990. Bates no. 2026089708/9710. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vex83e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
72. Secondhand smoke blamed for 53 000 deaths a year. New York Times. May 30, 1991:A9. Google Scholar
73. Dennis D. EPA/ETS. Philip Morris. May 30, 1991. Bates no. 2503007304. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/foa42e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
74. Fuller CL, Linehan K. Presentation to the Board of Directors. Philip Morris. June 24, 1992. Bates no. 2047916000/6013. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kgr52e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
75. Deaths Tied to Passive Smoking. Associated Press. January 10, 1991. Bates no. 2023524139. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iqz23e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
76. Bakst N. Studies link passive smoke to diseases. 1991. Bates no. TI02121183. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rnt30c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
77. Researchers say passive smoke causes 53 000 deaths annually. Associated Press. January 10, 1991. Bates no. TI10272378. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nte40c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
78. Simmons WS. Findings Challenged On Passive Smoke Risk. RJ Reynolds. March 19, 1991. Bates no. 980051630. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/shs90c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
79. Swetonic M, Knowlton H. “Back-Door Prohibition.” October 7, 1990. Bates no. 507782833/2836. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qxp14d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
80. Wu J. Dear Mike. January 20, 1991. Bates no. 2023581409. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcn87e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
81. Wu J. Untitled draft letter re: article by Glantz and Parmley. 1991. Bates no. 2023581410/1416. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kcn87e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
82. Wu J. Untitled draft letter disagreeing with Glantz's conclusion. 1991. Bates no. 2023581417/1423. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lcn87e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
83. Wu J. Untitled draft letter (“cavalier approach to complex subject”). 1991. Bates no. 2023581424/1429. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mcn87e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
84. Wu J. Passive smoking and heart disease. February 1991. Bates no. 2023581195/1199. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jqc34e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
85. Wu J. Dear Dr. Ross. New York Medical College. February 6, 1991. Bates no. 2026098248. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wax83e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
86. Appendix A: Analysis of expenses already incurred. Tobacco Institute. June 24, 1991. Bates no. 0018948/8954. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gai91f00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
87. D. Analysis of expenses anticipated for OSHA proposals. Tobacco Institute. June 24, 1991. Bates no. 0018961/8963. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jai91f00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
88. Dr. Wu's consultation fee from 960900 to 970800. Philip Morris. September 1996. Bates no. 2073796022. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tvu85c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
89. Packett KT. Dear Mopsey. Tobacco Institute. July 8, 1991. Bates no. 2029377923/7930. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kmz98e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
90. Holcomb LC. Environmental tobacco smoke and cardiovascular disease [letter]. Circ. 1991;84:957958. Google Scholar
91. Simmons WS. Environmental smoke and cardiac diseases [letter]. Circ. 1991;84:957958. Google Scholar
92. Pepples E. Dr. Alvan Feinstein. Brown & Williamson. November 13, 1990. Bates no. 680712947. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ugp33f00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
93. Keane D. Note. Philip Morris. August 13, 1992. Bates no. 2023856399. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mvj53e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
94. Resume. PN Lee Statistics and Computing. 1989. Bates no. 2028376139. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dtt22d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
95. Hong MK, Bero LA. How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke. BMJ. 2002;325:14131416. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
96. T.I. ETS Consultant Program Project Status: Project: Letter to the editor of Journal of Clinical Epidemiology re Glantz. Tobacco Institute. July 9, 1993. Bates no. TIOK0007725. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sag02f00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
97. Preparation and submission of letters for publication on ETS PREP. PN Lee Statistics and Computing. July 7, 1993. Bates no. TI01410961. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wfq30c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
98. Glantz SA, Hawkins RE, Begay ME, Traynor M, Hazan AR. Notice of Grant Award. Effect of Tobacco Advocacy at the State Level. National Cancer Institute. March 24, 1994. Bates no. 511401103/1151. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oqq61d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
99. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control; 1989. Google Scholar
100. Draft [strategy for dealing with researchers]. Philip Morris. April 1995. Bates no. 2044404772/4776. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jzv57d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
101. 130/10 Club. State legislators to be investigated by the National Cancer Institute. Washington Times. March 14, 1995. Bates no. 2046887112. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ciw87d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
102. How not to spend science dollars. Washington Times. May 28, 1995. Bates no. 2046557170. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fhw87d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
103. Talbott B. Porter halts tobacco probe funding by NCI. Chicago Sun-Times. August 9, 1995:News:13. Google Scholar
104. Boland J. National Cancer Institute Grant to Stanton Glantz. Philip Morris. 1995. Bates no. 2046926078. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jnc37c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
105. Ronhovdee M. National Cancer Institute Awards Over $600,000 to Investigate State Legislators. Undated. Bates no. TCAL0477407/7414. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nye96d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
106. Thompson RC, Handman S. R.J. Reynolds. July 8, 1988. Bates no. 506629010. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pze87c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
107. Worldwide Regulatory Affairs 950000 Original Budget. Philip Morris. October 26, 1994. Bates no. 2065424232/4277. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tep94c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
108. Check from Philip Morris to American Smokers Alliance in the amount of $25 000. Philip Morris. March 8, 1994. Bates no. 2025385639. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mup91a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
109. Glantz SA, Begay ME. Tobacco industry campaign contributions are affecting tobacco control policymaking in California. JAMA. 1994;272:11761182. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
110. Moore S, Wolfe SM, Lindes D, Douglas CE. Epidemiology of failed tobacco control legislation. JAMA. 1994;272:11711175. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
111. Monardi F, Glantz SA. Are tobacco industry campaign contributions influencing state legislative behavior? Am J Public Health. 1998;88:918923. LinkGoogle Scholar
112. Givel M, Glantz S. Tobacco lobby political influence on US state legislatures in the 1990s. Tob Control. 2001;10:124134. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
113. Glantz S. I am writing to inform you about a political intrusion into the NIH peer review process that appears directed at cutting off important research under way here at UCSF. September 11, 1995. Bates no. 513967439/7445. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ljl30d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
114. Perske M. Is a P value of 0.06 considered “marginally significant”? September 4, 1995. Bates no. 517252803. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ijn01d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
115. Perske M. This is the 3rd fax I've sent you today, and I am truly sorry to keep bothering you. September 4, 1995. Bates no. 517252805. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kjn01d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
116. Perske M. Just as I was shutting down tonight (Tuesday) I got a fax from Sally Hull in Weston, MO, saying that CNN flashed a news blurb that said in essence, “Non-smoking workplaces decrease health.” September 26, 1995. Bates no. 517252777. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ofu90d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
117. Perske M. I found out there was an article in St. Petersburg Times that printed the AP info on CDC's study. May 9, 1996. Bates no. 517252761. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zxw60d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
118. Perske M. I think the AP reporter (Paul Reasor, I'm told) who reported on CDC’s study may be guilty of fraudulent reporting. May 8, 1996. Bates no. 517252757. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bjn01d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
119. Perske M. I heard from JAMA (see attached). September 24, 1996. Bates no. 517252812. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ayw60d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
120. Perske M. The NIOSH Bulletin: Workplace Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). April 15, 1994. Bates no. 512025672/5674. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qyg43d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
121. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking causes heart disease and lung cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:815819. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
122. Perske M. I'm writing to ask if I have permission to give your name and number to Wanda Hamilton, in Miami Lakes, Florida. May 17, 1995. Bates no. 511407255. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xbv90d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
123. Unified Youth Program 1996 Expenditures. May 24, 1996. Bates no. TI16801204. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uqu40c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
124. No title. Philip Morris. August 22, 1996. Bates no. 2065149977/9978. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/chd04c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
125. Maher K. List confidentiality agreement. Walt Klein & Associates. February 5, 1996. Bates no. 2045459072. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xtz74a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
126. Lowstetter J. Enclosed is an approved copy of the 1996(960000) contract between Walt Klein & Associates, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. RJ Reynolds. December 6, 1995. Bates no. 515608327. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/umw03a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
127. Field coordinators representing RJR contact. 1992. Bates no. 17082007–17082013. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cuz40c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
128. Phillips M. ETS: Smokers Rights Person. RJ Reynolds. March 22, 1996. Bates no. 528340709/0710. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gwc25a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
129. Warden J. National Cancer Institute Awards $600,000. RJ Reynolds. August 4, 1995. Bates no. 524573606/3607. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dsr03c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
130. Daragan K. USA Today. Philip Morris. October 2, 1995. Bates no. 2048866330. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lez87d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
131. Brokaw J, Burstein R, Dreyfuss R, Gup T, Lauerman K, Stone P. Tobacco strikes back. Mother Jones. 1996;May/June:4657. Google Scholar
132. Corporate Affairs’ Presentation 920421. Philip Morris. April 21, 1992. Bates no. 2500122647/2709. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pnl19e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
133. Nicoli D. Re: Letter Writing. Philip Morris. February 9, 1994. Bates no. 2073011703. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uzs57c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
134. Anderson J. Whom is the affable senator aiding? Washington Post. December 7, 1979. Bates no. TIMN0084602. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bvr92f00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
135. Ford W. Dear Madame Secretary. April 12, 1995. Bates no. 2046557114. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/diw87d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
136. Shalala D. Letter from Secretary of US Department of Health and Human Services to Senator Wendell Ford regarding Stanton Glantz's NCI grant. Washington, DC: July 10, 1995. Google Scholar
137. Turner LS. This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information (FOIA) request dated August 11, 1994 (940811). October 3, 1994. Bates no. 511401101/1102. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tzz60d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
138. Federal “research” grant inappropriately targets state lawmakers Walt Klein & Associates. May 1, 1995. Bates no. 511401077/1092. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lxp44a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
139. Should a biased anti-smoking activist get a $600,000 federal grant to “investigate”state legislators? Walt Klein & Associates. May 16, 1995. Bates no. 511401093/1098. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kxp44a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
140. Stanton Glantz: Political Scientist. Walt Klein & Associates. May 1, 1995. Bates no. 511401099/1100. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jxp44a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
141. DiLorenzo T. Policing PC: how the government is stacking the deck in the debate over smoking. National Review. 1995;August 28:3638. Google Scholar
142. Influential by any measure. National Review Web site. http://www.nationalreview.com/mediakit/2006_Advertising_NR.pdf. 2006. Accessed April 24, 2008. Google Scholar
143. Silverstein K. Public Citizen. Smoke and mirrors: the tobacco industry's influence on the phony “grassroots” campaign for liability limits. http://www.citizen.org/documents/smokeMirors.PDF. Published March 19, 1996. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
144. Marden R. Fw: YSP Ally Possibilities. Philip Morris. October 28, 1998. Bates no. 2069562030/2031. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rrg37c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
145. Bennett JT, DiLorenzo T Cancerscam: The Diversion of Federal Cancer Funds to Politics. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 1997. Google Scholar
146. Sydnor TD. National Cancer Institute Grant to Stanton Glantz. Arnold & Porter. December 4, 1995. Bates no. 16131045/1047. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rsh77c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
147. Borelli T. Shared corporate contribution grant with PM USA to ETV Endowment of South Carolina. Philip Morris. February 5, 1993. Bates no. 2046597251. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wic65e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
148. Parrish SC. Approval of request from Blackwell Corporation for $150 000 grant for 1994 season of Technopolitics. Philip Morris. April 15, 1994. Bates no. 2072854051. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lbp95c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
149. Public Policy Grants. Philip Morris. 1995. Bates no. 2046563745. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qqw87d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
150. Corporate Affairs 940000 Original Budget. Philip Morris. 1994. Bates no. 2045687943/7973. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/onu82e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
151. Contributions—Primary Questions. April 7, 1995. Bates no. 2045982389/2400. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jrx06c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
152. H.R. 2127 floor statement: tobacco-specific amendment to prohibit further funding of NCI's grants to Stanton Glantz and Richard Daynard. September 18, 1995. Bates no. 522607275. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zdn60d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
153. Report of the Committee on Appropriations together with dissenting and separate views [to accompany H.R. 2127]. US House of Representatives. July 19, 1995. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/igs40c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
154. Yoe C. Summary of action of House Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill. Tobacco Institute. August 4, 1995. Bates no. 522607268/7269. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mvm50d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
155. Glantz S. “Dear Colleague” letter regarding political intrusion into the NIH peer review process. San Francisco, CA: August 2, 1995 (updated September 11, 1995). Google Scholar
156. Nicoli D. Issue Reporting. Philip Morris. August 12, 1995. Bates no. 2048403070/3071. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/etg74a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
157. Nicoli D. Attached is a status report on industry efforts concerning the NCI grants to Glantz and Daynard. Philip Morris. December 5, 1995. Bates no. 2048391277. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bkc24c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
158. Appropriations. Philip Morris. 1996. Bates no. 2045580823/0825. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jft57d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
159. Sydnor TD. Re: National Cancer Institute Grants to Daynard and Glantz. Arnold & Porter. 1995. Bates no. 2047239186. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hmv95c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
160. Sydnor TD. Memorandum analyzing possible responses to the Glantz/Daynard grants. Arnold & Porter. January 30, 1996. Bates no. 2047239162. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jeg95c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
161. Warning: Tobacco Interests Using Budget Process to Block Cancer Control Research. October 1995. Bates no. 2047331306. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ujf77e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
162. Porter J, Wicker R, Klausner RD, Pelosi N. Politics and science. July 9, 1996. Bates no. 522607289/7290. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ovm50d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
163. Hoel J. NCI Grant. August 7, 1996. Bates no. 2062538051/8052. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/scf94a00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
164. Glantz S, Smith LRA. The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants on restaurant sales. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:10811085. LinkGoogle Scholar
165. Dearlove JV, Bialous SA, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places. Tob Control. 2002;11:94104. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
166. The Accommodation Program. If you can't afford to lose 25.9 percent of your customers, you can't afford to pass up this offer. Philip Morris. May 1994. Bates no. 2042928597/8600. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jte75e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
167. Carter PC. Restaurant smoking ban an idea whose time has not come. RJ Reynolds. January 7, 1994. Bates no. 511412512/2515. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lhj61c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
168. The Accommodation Program, 950000. Philip Morris. December 1, 1995. Bates no. 2045518744/8766. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sfn83c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
169. Glantz S, Smith LRA. The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants and bars on revenues: a follow-up. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:16871693. LinkGoogle Scholar
170. Glantz S, Smith LRA. Erratum for the effect of ordinances requiring smokefree restaurants and bars on revenues: a follow up. Bates no. 2065281969/1971. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yfy77d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
171. Smoke-free ordinances do not affect bar business, UCSF researcher says. Business Wire. November 4, 1997. Bates no. 2073357358A/7359. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/duf95c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
172. Stauber J, Rampton S. Toxic Sludge is Good for You. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press; 1995. Google Scholar
173. Givel M. Consent and counter-mobilization: the case of the national smokers alliance. J Health Commun. 2007;12:339357. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
174. Susser M. Goliath and some Davids in the tobacco wars. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:15931594. LinkGoogle Scholar
175. External Affairs. Philip Morris. March 30, 1999. Bates no. 2071709222/9272. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wne16c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
176. Corporate Contributions Database. RJ Reynolds. October 24, 1986. Bates no. 518160935/0950. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jei97c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
177. Public Interest Legal Foundations. Philip Morris. 1994. Bates no. 2078212268/2276. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/frs75c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
178. Bryan-Jones K, Bero LA. Tobacco industry efforts to defeat the occupational safety and health administration indoor air quality rule. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:585592. LinkGoogle Scholar
179. Richards B. Pro-Tobacco Groups Step Up Attacks on a Longtime Foe. Wall Street Journal. July 23, 1997. Bates no. 519987262. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fck90d00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
180. Lawsuit dismissed against UCSF regarding tobacco research [press release]. San Francisco, CA: University of California, San Francisco Department of Public Affairs; December 1, 1997. Google Scholar
181. Tobacco litigation at a Glantz. San Francisco Examiner. December 8, 1997:A20. Google Scholar
182. Confessore N. Meet the press: how James Glassman reinvented journalism—as lobbying. Washington Monthly. 2003. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html. Accessed July 8, 2008. Google Scholar
183. Scruggs JF. The “Echo Chamber” Approach to Advocacy. Philip Morris. December 19, 1998. Bates no. 2078709084/9085. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/riz37c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
184. 920000 Corporate Spending. Philip Morris. 1991. Bates no. 2041623648. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qud86e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
185. 930000 Corporate Spending. Philip Morris. 1992. Bates no. 2041795153. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xdq76e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
186. Corporate Magazine Schedule 940000 vs. 930000 Spending. Philip Morris. 1994. Bates no. 2078388146. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ldk70c00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
187. Marstellar B. Philip Morris Corporate Issues Communications 950000: A Window of Opportunity. Young & Rubicam. March 15, 1995. Bates no. 2044336467A/6528. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nmq55e00. Accessed May 19, 2008. Google Scholar
188. Saloojee Y, Dagli E. Tobacco industry tactics for resisting public policy on health. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(7):902910. MedlineGoogle Scholar
189. Marshall E. Tobacco science wars. Science. 1987;236:250251. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
190. Barnoya J, Glantz S. The tobacco industry's worldwide ETS consultants project: European and Asian components. Eur J Public Health. 2006;16(1):6977. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
191. Assunta M, Fields N, Knight J, Chapman S. “Care and feeding”: the Asian environmental tobacco smoke consultants programme. Tob Control. 2004;13(suppl 2):ii4ii12. MedlineGoogle Scholar
192. Gruning T, Gilmore A, McKee M. Tobacco industry influence on science and scientists in Germany. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:2032. LinkGoogle Scholar
193. Bornhauser A, McCarthy J, Glantz SA. German tobacco industry's successful efforts to maintain scientific and political respectability to prevent regulation of secondhand smoke. Tob Control. 2006;15(2):e1. Google Scholar
194. Taylor P. Smoke Ring. New York, NY: Pantheon Books; 1984. Google Scholar
195. Goodman W. Life lessons from ABC's nicotine exposé on “Day One.” New York Times. May 8, 1994. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E2DC1130F93BA35756C0A962958260. Accessed July 8, 2008. Google Scholar
196. Bialous SA, Fox BJ, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry allegations of “illegal lobbying” and state tobacco control. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:6267. LinkGoogle Scholar
197. Legresley E, Muggli M, Hurt R. Playing hide-and-seek with the tobacco industry. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2005;7:2740. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
198. Samet JM, Burke TA. Turning science into junk: the tobacco industry and passive smoking. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:17421744. LinkGoogle Scholar
199. Michaels D. Manufactured uncertainty: protecting public health in the age of contested science and product defense. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1076:149162. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
200. Washburn J. University Inc: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2006. Google Scholar

Related

No related items

TOOLS

SHARE

ARTICLE CITATION

Anne Landman, BA, and Stanton A. Glantz, PhDAt the time of this study, Anne Landman was with the Center for Tobacco Control Research, University of California, San Francisco. She is also with the Center for Media and Democracy, Madison, WI. Stanton A. Glantz is with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. “Tobacco Industry Efforts to Undermine Policy-Relevant Research”, American Journal of Public Health 99, no. 1 (January 1, 2009): pp. 45-58.

https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.130740

PMID: 19008508