94 



Mr. Synar, And you got a harsh lecture, based upon that con- 

 versation? 



Mr. DeNoble. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Synar. Based upon that conversation, did you contact the 

 psychopharmacological magazine to see what you could do? 



Mr. DeNoble. Yes, I called Herb Barry up and asked him what 

 the status of the two papers were. The first paper, which was a 

 brain site paper, had already gone to press. It was out, there was 

 nothing we could do. 



The self-administration paper, I believe your Exhibit 14, was in 

 press but it had not gone to proof, so we were able to again, for 

 the second time in 3 years, unfortunately, tell Herb that we had 

 to pull the paper back. 



Mr. Synar. All right. I have a copy of the letter that you sent 

 the journal editor, Herbert Barry. It's Exhibit 17. I'd ask unani- 

 mous consent that it be made part of the record. 



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



[Exhibit 17 follows:] 



September 22, 1986. 



Victor J. DeNoble, Ph.D., 



Ayerat Laboratories Research, Inc., CW 8000, Princeton, NJ 



Dear Victor: The revised version of your MS 868-1666, received August 4, is sat- 

 isfactorily improved and abbreviated. Thanks for your thorough, effective changes. 



My routine check for discrepancies between the reference list and citations in the 

 text has revealed that Lang et al. (1977) cited on pages 3 and 11, is not in the ref- 

 erence list. Since it was in the reference list in the prior version, this one of the 

 16 reference list items deleted apparently should have been retained. 



I share the distress you expressed in your phone conversation of September 18 

 that the Philip Morris Company has issued an injunction against publication of this 

 paper. I am returning to you the typescript, including the glossy prints of the four 

 figures. I will accept your paper for publication and send it to the Technical Editor 

 only if I receive fi"om vou a corrected tjrpescript with the information that the in- 

 junction has been lifted. 



When I return to the author a manuscript that I expect will be acceptable after 

 revision, I keep it in a pending status for 6 months. At the end of that time, I send 

 to the Joumafs Production Office a circulation slip specifying that the paper will 

 not be published. I will follow this procedure unless I receive contrary instructions 

 from you. 



Although it is disappointing both for you and for me that the efforts on this paper 

 by you, by two expert reviewers, and to a lesser extent by me will apparently not 

 result in publication, I believe that your effort and experience will be beneficially 

 applied to yovu- future papers. You have my best wishes for success in your ongoing 

 and future research, and for useful publications reporting your findings. 

 Sincerely yours, 



Herbert Berry, III, Ph.D., Field Editor for Behavioral Pharmacology in 



LABORATORY ANIMALS. 



Mr. Synar. Now, this was a letter from Barry to you, and I want 

 to quote from it. Quote, "I share the distress you expressed in your 

 phone conversation of the 18th of September, that the Philip Mor- 

 ris Company has issued an injunction against the publication of 

 this paper." 



Dr. DeNoble, you have worked for other companies since Philip 

 Morris, how do you compare these types of actions, which we have 

 just detailed and the company's efforts to keep your work confiden- 

 tial with other companies you've worked with? 



Mr. DeNoble. Before I answer, let me just say that there is an 

 error in the letter. The company never issued an injunction. They 

 just told me they would, if I couldn't get it out. So that's an error. 



