667 



sertions. According to the expert Federal agency on drug abuse, 

 and let me quote from it, "These findings from the DeNoble study 

 indicate that nicotine has reenforcing properties, one of the hall- 

 marks of addictive substances." 



Yet, with this overwhelming evidence by medical experts, you 

 continue to contend that your study shows the opposite. Would you 

 have this subcommittee believe that the National Institute doesn't 

 know how this study was conducted or understand it at all? 



Mr. Campbell. I can't comment. I obviously just received the 

 document for the first time. 



Mr. Synar. Mr. Campbell, was Dr. DeNoble's work part of your 

 company's effort to develop a nicotine analog, which are chemicals 

 which would have addicting or reenforcing features without any of 

 some of the nicotine side effects? Yes or no? 



Mr. Campbell. Yes. 



Mr. Synar. OK. I have here and I ask unanimous consent to 

 enter in the record Exhibit 8. 



Mr. Waxman. Without objection, that will be the order. 



Mr. Synar. It is a 1980 internal memorandum written by one of 

 your scientists, J.L. Charles. This memorandum describes nicotine 

 receptor research that your company was funding at the University 

 of Rochester. 



Was this related to Dr. DeNoble's work? 



Mr. Campbell. I studied this matter in general, but vou've now 

 entered into a depth of study that I — can I ask Dr. Ellis to help 

 me? 



Mr. Synar. Mr. Campbell, was this part not — turn around and 

 ask them. Was this part of Mr. DeNoble s work? 



Mr. Campbell. Yes. 



Mr. Synar. I ask unanimous consent to enter in the record Ex- 

 hibit 9. 



Mr. Waxman. Without objection, that will be the order. 



Mr. Synar. There's something that bothers me, Mr. Campbell, 

 even more than your complete misrepresentation and characteriza- 

 tion of the DeNoble work. It's the apparent attempt by your com- 

 pany to suppress the findings in the DeNoble study and to keep the 

 important study secret because it might hurt the industry. 



Now, let me go through the chronology with you. Dr. DeNoble 

 submitted his study to a leading scientific journal, 

 Psychopharmacology, in 1983. It was peer reviewed. It was accept- 

 ed for publication. It was edited. Then, at the last minute. Dr. 

 DeNoble withdrew the study. 



In a letter written to Philip Morris on Philip Morris stationery, 

 which you have before you. Dr. DeNoble explained that he was 

 withdrawing that study "for reasons beyond my control." 



Dr. DeNoble resubmitted that study in 1985, Mr. Campbell. It 

 went through the same peer process. I'd ask for Exhibit 10 to be 

 made part of the record. 



Mr. Waxman. Without objection, that will be the order. 



[Testimony resumes on p. 685.] 



[Exhibits 5-A through 10 follow:] 



