415 



with unifonair regative results . 



The nbnurtond-Auerbaob study of smoking dogs, notwithstanding, 

 we feel that this st^l^Svit is still valid. In fact we believe its validity is. if 

 anything, reinforcw.by ih» pecubar circumstances surrounding the Hammond- 

 Auerbach work and its {^licatioB. 



Last February, n^ou will recall, the American Cancer Society 

 held a news conference in New %s>t\. to announce: "For the first time scientl3ts 

 ^ve produced lung cancer in a significa^ntly large animal as a result of heavr 

 cig4Jr€tte smoking. " ACS added that the Tifj^ings "should have a significant 

 imf>act on -the smoking of cigarettes in this ccKit)try. and will probably lead 

 to a reassessment of advertising claims and policiess^y the cigarette indusirr. " 



Sbortly^hereafler and three times subsequeTiJ^ the Tobacco Institute 

 asked the American Q^o^^t Society to make all materials irui^flatt from the 

 study available for ev&luafcw by a group of independent experty^ith the 

 understanding the Tobacco Insfi^te would pay the costs involved. On each 



occasion this request was r«fua«d. ^ r V' 



^^ 

 Then last summer, as I am stipe you remember, the Journal of the 



American Medical Association, acting on thfr^ecommendation of 18 independent 



authorities, decided not to publish the Hammona-Auerbach work, subject to 



major revision. The main reason reported for this dfe^sion was the poor 



' r- 



quality of the slides submitted by Dr. Auerbach to substarrHate his claims. 



One cannot help but wo-.der why a scientist of Dr. Au^rbach's vear-s 

 and experience, attempting to advance a controversial claim In one ^f>the m:st c 

 prestigious medical journals in the world, did not submit his finest slirfes aad u 

 microscopic materials with his work initially. 



