S E C R E T
At the recent Fundamental Research meeting in Southampton, I
Indicated that I had been asked to present a paper on R&D covering
size and distribution of effort at the forthcoming CAC conference.
Although the paper has not been approved by the Group
Chairman, you might like to know the gist of my views.
The total R&D spend is E30 million plus LI.5 million for
external S&H related research.
I classify Group activities as follows:
Classification Short-medium Long term
term focussed .uncharted'
R&D Research
I
R&D aimed at Quality 65%
Improvement, Cost
Reduction and
Innovative Products
III IV
R&D in response to S&H 12% 7%
related (Regulatory)
Issues
The percentage of efforts have been derived In several ways.
Note that IV contains all the L1.5 million external research plus
a small internal effort.
I proceed to illustrate work with each of categories I - IV.
I and 11 ate non-contentious In content but of course their
relative size may be a point of debate.
Categories III and IV account for the majority of the paper
since they are a potential source of confusion.
Category III builds on an evolutionary model for cigarette
development in response to management perception of Regulatory
pressure and consumer demand. It spans a 5 year period, updated
annually. Most of our work is internal since it concerns
cigarette modification. Other noxae. biological indices, tar/nic
ratios etc., are the examples. I also cover our internal efforts
In response to Passive Smoking Issues such as ambient atmospheric
monitoring and attempts to reduce sidestream smoke.
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 21 April 1999

2
Category IV raises the question of whether there exists any
more fundamental approaches to our major S&R issues. I expect to
suggest the view that until we understand the nature, if any. of
our problem how can we be rational in a research approach?
Therefore we rightly spend our funds with nedico-scientifLc teams
doing sound work, e.g. on mechanisms of disease. This will guide
our long term internal effort.
Whether we spend enough all together or in any individual
category is the basis for argument. I expect to float the concept
of alternative products, but Indicate support La very low even In
R&D circles I
A. L. Heard
ALH/DET
10.6.87
C=)
NJ
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 21 April 1999