361 



Mr. Bliley. Isn't the role of the CTR's Scientific Advisory Board 

 comparable to the role of similar advisory boards? 



Mr. Glenn. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Bliley. To your knowledge to what extent have the member 

 companies attempted to influence the research activities of the Sci- 

 entific Advisory Board? 



Mr. Glenn. They have never attempted to influence our activi- 

 ties in any way to my knowledge. 



Mr. Bliley. How long have you been in your present capacity? 



Mr. Glenn. In my present capacity 5 years, 4 years, but associ- 

 ated with CTR for 7 years. 



Mr. Bliley. There have been some recent criticisms of CTR 

 largely arising from the Cipollone case. Before the plaintiff's law- 

 yers and the media began their criticisms, there was an interesting 

 article that appeared in the July 1985 edition of the New York 

 State Journal of Medicine, the article quoted among others, Joanne 

 Shellenback, the Director of Press Relations with the American 

 Cancer Society in New York. 



She said of CTR and I quote, "They are legitimate. We are very 

 critical of the tobacco industry in terms of their advertising prac- 

 tices and many of the things that they do but here is an area 

 where they seem to be doing something by the book in promulgat- 

 ing good research. So I can't criticize them across the board." 



Do you think that CTR has been unfairly criticized recently? 



Mr. Glenn. Yes, sir, and I think it is by inference that we are 

 supporting smoking which is certainly the furthest thing from the 

 truth. We are an independent agency, we have the respect of medi- 

 cal investigators and institutions across the country and through- 

 out the world. We are regarded as a good source of funding particu- 

 larly for young people with fresh new ideas and approaches to the 

 questions of basic biomedical investigation that are so fundamental 

 to our understanding of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and others. 



I think the statement from the American Cancer Society is en- 

 tirely in keeping with the reputation we hold in the medical com- 

 munity. 



Mr. Bliley. You mentioned in your written oral statement that 

 three researchers funded in part by CTR have received Nobel 

 prizes in physiology on medicine. Could you name them? 



Mr. Glenn. Yes, sir. I think I mentioned Dr. Stanley Cohen of 

 Vanderbilt University for his work with epithelial growth factor. 

 The second was Dr. Barry Nazerath of Harvard University, who 

 really was the father of modern molecular biology. And the third 

 Nobel prize winner was Dr. Harold Varmus, currently the Director 

 of the National Institutes of Health. 



Mr. Bliley. Beyond the three researchers funded in part by CTR 

 that have received Nobel prizes, can you give this subcommittee 

 some idea of the quality of the research which has been funded by 

 CTR? 



Mr. Glenn. Well, I think the quality speaks for itself. As you pe- 

 ruse the annual reports you will see that we have moved to the 

 cutting edge of basic biomedical research. I think the quality is 

 tested by some of the examples I gave in my opening statement of 

 individuals who have made major breakthroughs in our under- 

 standing of basic disease process. 



