373 



I am informed, there were some contract studies in years past. 

 There are none today. 



In years past, there was a major contract with microbiological as- 

 sociates, and some several million dollars were spent in exposing 

 laboratory animals directly to tobacco smoke in an effort to produce 

 tumors. It was an unsuccessful effort. It went on for a number of 

 years and finally the Scientific Advisory Board, which had over- 

 sight over this contract research, decided that it was inappropriate 

 to continue with the research and the contract was terminated. It 

 ran through its end. It simply was not renewed. 



Mr. Greenwood. Did that contract contain within it terms speci- 

 fying the relative amount of freedom of the researchers to direct 

 the research or their freedom to publish? 



Mr. Glenn. Yes, sir, as a matter of fact a major publication re- 

 sulted from that Micro-Biological Associate's research work. 



Mr. Greenwood. So the contract did specify that the researchers 

 were in control of the direction of the research and were free to 

 publish their findings as opposed to the contract specifying that the 

 Council would determine the course of their science and whether 

 or not they could publish, is that correct? 



Mr. Glenn. Yes, sir. To my knowledge there never was no re- 

 striction. I think a number of publications by Micro-Biological Asso- 

 ciates resulted from that work. 



Mr. Greenwood. Could you make a copy of that contract avail- 

 able to this committee? 



Mr. Glenn. Yes, sir. 



[The following information was received:] 



Item G in the Appendix includes copies of each of the Council's contracts with 

 Microbiological Associates, Inc. ("MAI"), together with contract renewals. The Coun- 

 cil spent some $12 million under the MAI contracts on a large-scale, long-term study 

 of the effects of smoking inhalation on mice. 



I was mistaken when I told the subcommittee that these contracts contained no 

 restriction on publication by MAI. The Council has had no research contracts during 

 my tenure, and I had erroneously assumed that the Council's policies with respect 

 to publication by contract researchers were the same as its policies with respect to 

 publication by grantees. Since my testimony, I have learned that the MAI contracts 

 provided that the Council's prior written approval was required for MAI to publish 

 its research findings. Such provisions are customary in research contracts. 



It is my understanding that the results of the major inhalation study performed 

 by MAI were published in complete and unedited form. In addition, MAI published 

 dozens of articles based on its Council-funded research. Item H in the Appendix is 

 a list of 89 publications or abstracts that appear to have resulted from the Council's 

 support of MAI, at least 73 of which acknowledge support from the Council. 



Mr. Greenwood. Finally, Mr. Chairman. Another quote from the 

 article: "But lawyers from Jacob Mettinger told Micro-Biological the 

 project would go no further. When a contract is canceled given 

 these kinds of results, Dr. Henry says, reasonable scientists might 

 conclude the liability issue must have suddenly become apparent to 

 this group." 



You already disputed the use of the terminology contract being 

 canceled, you said it simply was not renewed. Was it in fact the 

 case that the decisions about whether such a contract would be 

 continued was made by lawyers from Jacob Mettinger or was that 

 decision made by the Council? 



Mr. Glenn. To my knowledge — again, Mr. Greenwood, I was not 

 there — but to my knowledge what I have been told, Scientific Advi- 



