|
Letter from Roy E. Albert M.D. (University of Cincinnati Medical Center) January 11, 2001 Dear Anna White: I read your letter of December 21, 2000 asking me to quit the Phillip Morris SAB. Your argument is that 1 - Phillip Morris initiated a biomedical research program in order to give their cigarette business an aura of legitimacy and thereby benefit their tobacco sales, and 2 - my participation in the SAB is abetting this underhanded effort to the detriment of my reputation. On page 2 of your letter, third paragraph from the end, you say, "In fact, there is every reason to believe that Phillip Morris's aims are as nefarious as ever. We expect that Phillip Morris will use its "new" research program to try to persuade governments around the world not to implement tobacco control legislation." I do not approve of Phillip Morris and other cigarette manufacturer's cover-up efforts about the health hazards of smoking, their lobbying of governments and international health agencies and their prosyletizing minors. I am participating in the Phillip Morris external research program because it is scientifically useful. I hope that the program will do more good than harm. Sincerely yours, Roy E. Albert M.D.
Email from Roy Albert (University of Cincinnati Medical Center) Subject: Re: Message from India To All Concerned: Thank you for your communication indicating disapproval of my serving on the Science Advisory Board for Phillip Morris's external research program. I have received enough of such sentiments to warrant my formulating a blanket response, which I am sending you. There is no question that cigarette smoking is harmful to health. I know this very well having written a portion of the first Surgeon General's report on Smoking and Health in the 1960s. I have also done extensive research to characterize the damage to muco-ciliary clearance of particles from the lung in humans and animals caused by cigarette smoking. I have done extensive research on the mechanisms of cancer induction by chemicals including cigarette smoke and also the promoting effect of cigarette smoke components on arteriosclerosis. I am an Elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in recognition of "the excellence of my research on carcinogenesis". I have been a member of the American Association for Cancer Research for 35 years. I have a total of 202 scientific publications. I pioneered carcinogen risk assessment for the EPA as Chair of the Carcinogen Assessment Group for ten years on a consultant basis, earning two medals from them. I have never been a cigarette smoker although I once tried it at an early age and found it distasteful. I was a heavy cigar smoker for 20 years (without inhaling) and quit because my taste for quality in cigars exceeded my purse. I have four close family members who smoke cigarettes and I have failed to convince them to stop in spite of my best efforts. One, a psychiatrist and former medical school classmate, died of lung cancer last year and also suffered chronic bronchitis and emphysema as well as tuberculosis, all undoubtedly from cigarette smoking. I believe that there are intelligent people who are fully informed of the health hazards of cigarette smoking and cannot stop smoking in a sustained fashion because they find that they cannot otherwise cope with stress. Such people need to smoke and would break the law to continue to do so if tobacco prohibition were instituted. For them, and there are a lot of them, there is a beneficial aspect to cigarette smoking that seems, from their standpoint, to outweigh the health risks. I believe in the maximum freedom to do, say and think as one wishes. I don't believe in prohibition or censorship of any sort so long as such actions do not jeopardize the functioning and general well-being of society. I strongly believe in the necessity of health education, including the dangers of cigarette smoking, to permit individuals to make the most intelligent choices about their habits. I don't believe in censuring companies or their management and stockholders who lawfully cater to people's needs however self destructive, whether it involves alcohol, tobacco, armaments, etc. If there is money to be made, and it is legal, people will jump to it. That is the way things work in our free society, and it is a good thing. I do strongly object to illegal commerce, as with drugs. Does cigarette smoking harm the welfare of our society in terms of its ability to function effectively? I think not. Let's say that half the population smokes. Ten percent of heavy smokers die of lung cancer, generally after the age of 60. The average amount of life span lost is about seven years, which is about one tenth the average life span. That means the aggregate life span lost to society from cancer by smoking is one half times ten percent times ten percent which equals one half percent. A one half percent life span loss toward the end of the average life span is probably compensated for by the increased productivity of people who have to use cigarettes to cope with stress during their best years. So our social machinery will hardly break down because people smoke. I don't advocate dying of lung cancer. It can be a miserable drowning form of death with the associated bronchitis and emphysema. But other forms of cancer are not so hot either. Moreover, the odds of dying of cancer are hardly greater with cigarette smokers compared to non-cigarette smokers. I know this because I analyzed the classic Dorn-Hahn U.S. Veterans study. About the same percent of smokers and non-smokers die of cancer, but the kinds of cancers differ between the two groups, and cigarette smokers die seven years earlier. Do I advocate cigarette smoking? Of course not! Do I advocate a ban on smoking in public places? Yes, because ever since I stopped smoking cigars, I, and most people, find the odor of cigarette smoke unpleasant. I don't think the cancer risk from environmental tobacco smoke exposure in public places is of much concern. Tobacco smoke is more important in homes with children. Do I advocate banning the advertising of cigarettes to minors? Yes, because the longer one smokes the greater the odds of harm. It is up to overseas governments to ban smoking by children as we do. They don't have to be economic giants to do that. Do I think Phillip Morris is engaging in diversionary tactics by trying to improve their image? I wouldn't know, but their putting money into biomedical research is all to the good. Do I think Phillip Morris will manipulate the research to their own "nefarious" ends? I don't see how, because the kinds of research proposals submitted are investigator- generated and from reputable institutions and are of the same type and caliber that are sent to the National Institutes of Health. If I find that Phillip Morris somehow distorts the advice of the Science Advisory board, I will resign. Will Phillip Morris use the fact of their supporting research to burnish their image and therefore improve their lobbying effectiveness? I bet that they will continue to lobby, or their stockholders will fire the management, but I don't see that they will gain much in this direction because they support research. Do I sound like a Phillip Morris employee? I hope not. I do not have any financial interests in any tobacco company unless TIA-CREFF or the Ohio State Teachers Retirement Program has money in them. Will I make a pile of money by participating in the Phillip Morris Science Advisory Board? A few thousand dollars, but for a lot of work. So far as my participation in doing something about the environmental health problem of cigarette smoking is concerned, I think I have made a respectable contribution over the years. My advice to you is to vigorously support efforts to prevent people from smoking cigarettes and to support research that aims to ameliorate the problem. Sincerely yours, Roy E. Albert M.D. |