TABLE 2.

Strategies Listed in Philip Morris' Draft “Action Plan: Scientists” and Events Involving Glantz, 1991–1997

Philip Morris Action Plan100	Actual Events
“We can prepare and place letters to the editor [criticizing scientists] in appropriate scientific journals, including those the work was published in, and other leading journals.”	1991: Tobacco Institute consultants Decker and Holcomb publish letters criticizing Glantz and Parmley's article in Circulation. Other Institute contractors write letters to the New York Times criticizing coverage of Glantz and Parmley's research. Industry consultants Gori, Kilpatrick, Wu, Pedelty, Ecobichon, and Lee draft letters and op-ed pieces critical of Glantz for journals and newspapers.
	1992: Mantel publishes letter critical of Glantz and Parmley's Circulation article in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
“Elevate the issue of using public funds (primarily federal) to conduct anti-tobacco … research.”	February 1995: Marty Ronhovdee, a member of the Philip Morris–funded American Smokers Alliance, composes and widely circulates a report critical of Glantz and his NCI funding.
“[W]e can take out ads …that point out the flaws of the study in question… . [T]here is no doubt that the careful use of these ads would be extremely embarrassing to those scientists whose methodology, data and conclusions are demonstrably wrong.”	March 14, 1995: The Washington Times runs a 130/10 Club ad attacking Glantz and NCI.101
“It should be noted that public interest groups like Common Cause already conduct this kind of study every year and release the results at no cost to the public.”	May 28, 1995: A Washington Times editorial says, “Only weeks ago Common Cause published an analysis of tobacco industry contributions and voting patterns in Congress. For the cost of a 32-cent stamp, NCI could have requested a copy of this study and saved taxpayers $599 999.68.”102
“The issue of public funding, especially federal funding, should become an issue we pursue in the legislative arena. For example, the National Cancer Institute's $600 000 grant to Stanton Glantz … does nothing to advance the common goal of finding cures for cancer.”	August 9, 1995: Representative John Porter (R, IL) says, “[Glantz's] study … focuses on the political process and those who lobby legislatures on tobacco issues… . This is not clinical or behavioral research and should not have been funded by NCI.”103
	Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union says, “When most people think of the National Cancer Institute, they think of people in lab coats looking for a cure for lung cancer… . [A] study that's so politically charged should not be the purview of a disease research agency.”65
“We can and should reach out to our allies on Capitol Hill, particularly those serving on authorizing and appropriations committees.”	December 5, 1995: Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds work with Representative Porter (who is on the House Appropriations committee) to block Glantz's NCI funding. An internal Philip Morris memo says, “[John Fish of RJ Reynolds] … advises that … [Representative] Porter's … [office has] assured him that the labor-HHS Appropriations continuing resolution will include language to prohibit funding for Glantz.”104
“[W]e can send a letter to the [scientist's] appropriate dean or department head raising questions about the validity of a scientist's work.”	April 23, 1997: Thomas Humber, president of the National Smokers Alliance, writes to University of California president Richard Atkinson attacking Glantz's integrity and competence regarding his 1994 published study on the economic effects of smoking restrictions.43

Note. NCI = National Cancer Institute. HHS = US Department of Health and Human Services.