VISIT TO CANADA
JUNE 12 - 18th, 1983
ITINERARY:
June 13 MONTREAL, McGill University
: a.m. Dr.Malcolm King
: p.m. Dr.Edith Zorychta
June 14 MONTREAL : Dr.Minoo Bilimoria
June 15 OTTAWA : Dr.Verner Knott
JUNE 16 MONTREAL a.m. Visiting R&D, ITL
p.m. travel to Vancouver BC
June 17 VANCOUVER Professor J.C.Hogg
INTRODUCTION
The visit was made to have discussions with the
five
current grantees of the Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers'
council. Unfortunately, it occurred a few days
after CTMC
had decided to terminate the grants to all but
two, viz.
Dr.Zorychta and Dr.Knott. Consequently, the
mission was
embroiled in discussions as to the reasons for
termination.
BACKGROUND
For some time CTMC had been discussing the
problems
involved in a grant-aided research programme which
the
members felt ill-qualified to supervise. Most
member
companies tended to rely on advice from their
principal
shareholders and this was often contradictory.
A suggestion to set up an independent Advisory
Board had
been vetoed at the last minute by MacDonald -
R.J.R. and
the Scientific Committee had been driven back to
making the
decisions locally.
A formula for priority assessment had been agreed
- see
Appendix I - under which a veto procedure was only
possible
if the project lay outside the policy statement of
the CTMC.
When the proposals for grant renewals were
discussed,
one or more companies exercised the veto in
respect of the
projects from Dr.Kinq, Dr.Bilimoria and Professor
Hogg.
The CTMC had, however, agreed to give each grantee
six
month's notice of termination from July Ist, 1983.
It would seem, to an outsider, that the projects
which
had been vetoed, neverthelessr conformed to the
Policy
Statement of CTMC, i.e. the vetoes had been
exercised (:::D
improperly. No grounds for the *veto were
required, but the 110
explanations offered seem tenuous and, in certain
areas,
ridiculous, e.g. Professor Hogg's use of patients
with
respiratory disabilities; nobody without
respiratory -r.-
problems would be prepared to give lung samples
through an 0N
operatton, and Hogg's studies of human samples
would be cc
impossible. cc
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 9
November 1999


-2-
The Visits
During each of the visits, the grantees gave
descriptions
of their progress which conformed closely to those
given in
their grant applications to CTMC. It is not
proposed to
relate these 'again here. Instead emphasis is
given to
those parts of the discussions which the grantees
raised
and the ensuing problems.
(a) Dr-King. Mr.Wade was unable to be present
during the
visit to the Meakins-Christie Institute of McGill
University. Dr.King's talk followed the course of
the research closely. Midway through"the morning
Professor Milic-Emili, the Director of the
Institute,
joined us and at once raised the matter of the
difficult-
ies which ensued from the termination of the CTMC
grant.
He pointed out that the Institute was one of two
centres
of excellence for respiratory research in Canada
(the
other being the University of British Columbia,
Vancouver), the grants to both of which had been
cut by
CTMC. He had already discussed the problems with
Dr.Hogg- The Canadian MRC had recently made a cut
in
grants and Dr.Peter Macklem had written an
editorial in
the Montreal Gazette complaining of the disastrous
effect this would have. Milic-Emile, who is a
smoker,
made the point that the Meakins-Christie was not
staffed
by rabid antismokers. It seemed to me that there
was a
suspicion of a threat that if support was not
forth-
coming the industry might find itself attacked
more
vehemently; others did not share this suspicion.
I attempted to explain what I thought were- the
reasons
for the CTMC decision and suggested that
Milic-Emili
should make his views known to CTMC through
Mr.Seymour
and, perhaps, by other routes, e.g. Prof.Peter
Pare.
Subsequently, when Mr.Wade was available during
the
afternoon, he sought out Milic-Emili and gave
similar
advice and explanation.
(b) Dr.Zorychta. Her work is concerned with the
nature and
action of the neurotransmitters involved in
controlling
airways - on the frontier of respiratory
physiology.
She seems to have successfully demonstrated that
this
is not "peptide-ergic". She runs a small, very
enthusiastic team of young people. To date she has
not
published much, because of the development and
nature
of her work. Loss of her CTMC grant would be
serious,
but she would probably find an alternative source
from
the pharmaceutics industry, who are also
interested in
her findings.
It was interesting to leArn from Mr-Wade that my
enthusiasm for her project was shared by Philip
Morris,
who had given her work the maximum score possible
during
the CTMC evaluation.
CO
__J
ON
00
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 9
November 1999


-3-
(c) Dr.Bilimoria. Despite a number of setbacks and
the
impending loss of his CTMC grant, he remains
enthus-
iastic. He is highly knowledgeable of the
literature,
but seems to allow the detail to distract him from
the
overall hypotheses on which his approaches are
based.
I understand that, as an ITL employee, his salary
is
not involved in the CTMC grant, so that the loss
of
the grant may only involve a redeployment of his
effort. Clearly the approval with which his
projects
were viewed by GR&DC is not shared by the other
Canadian
Companies. Perhaps the solution would be to
integrate
his studies* with the programme of work in the
Biological
Research of GR&DC.
(d) Dr.Verner Knott. Knott's project has received
approval
for a further 12 months, but Mr.Wade suggested to
him
it would be prudent to seek alternative support
for
1984 onwards, e.g. from Canada Health and Welfare,
in
case CTHC decided to abandon a programme of
research
grants. Applications must be filed with the
Government
by December lst, 1983 for a grant from July 1984.
We learnt that Health and Welfare had expressed
interest
in the project for studying smoking motivation and
physical factors in school children which CTMC
declined
to support. Knott has the approval of the various
School Boards and would like to proceed if CTMC
did
not object. He had difficulty in understanding why
the CTMC (and latterly two member companies) had
reservations about the project, particularly as,
subsequently, one company had offered him
unilateral
financial support for the project. (This Company
had
vetoed the project in CTMC). At least tido of the
Companies have made him offers for work at their
US
parent organisations or under a grant from them.
(e) Professor Hogg. The decision by CTMC to
withdraw
support from the projects at the University of
British
Columbia at six month's notice was extremely
worrying
to Hogg, particularly as the provision of
alternative
funds could not be obtained before July 1984. This
meant a "window" of at least six months where
there
would be no cover f or more than 10% of his
departmental
budget.
His team of research physicians and ancillary
staff -
computer programmers, physiologist, biochemist and
electron microscopist - were now just fully
trained
and operational. He would have to dismiss them
and,
even if alternative sources of funds could be
found
(Health and Welfare, Medical Research Council'
these
would not become available in time to prevent the
<=
break-up of the team. ThL% consequent disruption
of
progress can be readily understood. CO
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 9
November 1999


-4-
I suggested to him thatt in curtailing the
projects,
CTMC may not have been fully aware of the
financial
complications and potential disruption they were
causing (they should have been!), and just as with
Milic-Emili, I suggested he wrote to CTMC, setting
out
fully the problems that followed from their
decision,
I would also report these through ITL.
Summary and Conclusions
The decision by CTMC to curtail drastically its
support
of medical projects in Canada has apprently been
taken
without any thought of the disruption this will
cause
(and has caused) to the Institutions Involved and
to
the stability of established research teams.
Because
of the timing of the Canadian Grant Application -
programmes, the six-month's grace given by CTMC to
the
vetoed projects is totally inadequate to permit
alternative sources of revenue to be found in time
to
prevent the break-up of teams. Alternative
research
funds cannot be found at that relatively short
notice.
In the past, the Canadian Industry has enjoyed a
friendly exchange of views with the medical
establish-
ment, which includes some of the internationally
recog-
nised leaders of respiratory physiology and
medicine.
They are in danger of jeopardising this
relationship by
the unthinking way in which they have withdrawn
grants.
It is worth noting that some of the Companies
which
have exercised the veto only contribute a minor
proportion of the grant assistance. In at least
one
case, they have gone behind the back of CTMC and
have
offered unilateral financial support. It is not
unjust to say that the disruption caused to
leading
medical research institutions has been brought
about
by the failure of member companies to agree in
CTMC as
to their objectives in supporting medical
research.
Certainly, the vetoes on projects were exercised
improperly.
Recommendations
1. An effort should be made to preserve the
integrity
of the research teams at McGill, Royal Ottawa
Hospital and University of British Columbia.
This would be most easily made by CTMC extending
the period of grace from 6 months to one year,
permitting alternative sources of revenue to be
sought.
2. If, because of an inability -o form an agreed
research policy among ,the member companies, CTMC
decide to curtail all research grants, ITL should
CJYD
give consideration to unilateral (or perhaps bi-
lateral) support. This may well have to be on a
reduced scale, because of the financial
implications.
(The Research Budget would be reduced from around
$350,000 to $175,000).
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 9
November 1999


-5-
3. Using'the CTMC criteria, my priority rating of
the
projcts would be:-
Zorychta 28
Hogg 26
Knott 24
King 21
Bilimoria. 14
However I have tried to take all other factors,
e.g. P.R. etc. into account and in that event, I
would put the projects in the following order of
priority.
(a) Professor Hogg. His work on cell-junctions is
beginning to pay off and his access to human lung
tissue is unparallelled elsewhere. He is very well
disposed to the Industry and, particularly ITL and
BAT.
(b) Dr.Zorychta. Her work on neuro-biochemistry of
lung issue is of fundamental importance. She would
probably get support from the pharmaceutical
industry
if necessary, but the direction of her studies
would be changed.
(c) Dr.Knott)
Dr.King ) Because their work areas are so
different, it is difficult to compare them.
Knott's
approach to smoking motivation is an attraction,
but
he may well win support from the Canadian
Government.
He may then find he has conflicting objectives,
the
Department of Health and Welfare may want to
direct
his efforts towards ways of curtailing smoking,
while the Industry wants to know more about the
factors which may motivate smokers to move to
lower
tar products.
Dr.King is the route into the influential Meakins-
Christie Institute. His immediate research project
is perhaps of lower appeal than those supported
there formerly. But contact with him and through
him, with Milic Emili will enable the Industry to
maintain dialogue with leaders of medical thought
who are not inherently anti-smoking. The time may
be fast approaching when the Industry may need
such
influential allies.
(d) Dr.Bilimoria. His project seems of greatest
interest to the Biological Sciences section at
GR&DC.
Perhaps consideration coul( be given to ways
whereby
this work may be more closely integrated with the
GR&DC programme on the development of meaningful
C.L)
short term tests. In the current climate of CTMC,
1 -14
believe the work is tending too much towards
Product -11-1
Development studies to be justifiable as an
Industry, 011
as opposed to a Company, project. 110
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 9
November 1999


APPENDIX
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF CTMC RESEARCH GRANT
APPLICATIONS
.1. Is this research proposal in accordance-with
the Policy
Statement?
Answer: On a scale of Zero - 10; Zero being a
veto,
10 being maximum approval.
2. Are the objectives clearly defined and is the
suggested
methodology scientifically sound?
Answer: On a scale of I - 10; one being minimum,
10 being maximum.
3. Is the project well planned and realistic
within the
allocated time frame and within the proposed
budget?
Answer: on a scale of I - 10; one being minimum,
10 being maximum.
cz:>
110
00
0 N
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 9
November 1999