You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 16, Issue 3
  • Old ways, new means: tobacco industry funding of academic and private sector scientists since the Master Settlement Agreement

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Industry watch
Old ways, new means: tobacco industry funding of academic and private sector scientists since the Master Settlement Agreement
  1. Suzaynn F Schick,
  2. Stanton A Glantz
  1. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr S F Schick
 UCSF Box 0854, San Francisco, CA 94143-0854, USA; suzaynn.schick{at}ucsf.edu

Abstract

When, as a condition of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) in 1998, US tobacco companies disbanded the Council for Tobacco Research and the Center for Indoor Air Research, they lost a vital connection to scientists in academia and the private sector. The aim of this paper was to investigate two new research projects funded by US tobacco companies by analysis of internal tobacco industry documents now available at the University of California San Francisco (San Francisco, California, USA) Legacy tobacco documents library, other websites and the open scientific literature. Since the MSA, individual US tobacco companies have replaced their industry-wide collaborative granting organisations with new, individual research programmes. Philip Morris has funded a directed research project through the non-profit Life Sciences Research Office, and British American Tobacco and its US subsidiary Brown and Williamson have funded the non-profit Institute for Science and Health. Both of these organisations have downplayed or concealed their true level of involvement with the tobacco industry. Both organisations have key members with significant and long-standing financial relationships with the tobacco industry. Regulatory officials and policy makers need to be aware that the studies these groups publish may not be as independent as they seem.

  • BAT, British-American Tobacco
  • CIAR, Center for Indoor Air Research
  • CTR, Council for Tobacco Research
  • IFSH, Institute For Science and Health
  • LSRO, Life Sciences Research Office
  • MSA, Master Settlement Agreement

https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2006.017186

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Many individuals and institutions, particularly in the scientific community, choose not to accept funding from the tobacco industry.1–4 Historically, the industry’s reasons for funding publishable external scientific research have included building public credibility,5–7 developing industry-friendly experts to represent them in litigation and the regulatory process,8,9,10,11 and creating controversy about the health risks of active and passive smoking.7,9–14 Until 1998, almost all tobacco industry funding for academic scientists came through the industry’s Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) and the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR). These two organisations played a central role in the fraud alleged by the lawsuits brought against the tobacco industry in the 1990s. In the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) in 1998, the tobacco companies agreed to disband the CTR and CIAR, and cease sponsoring research through industry-wide groups.15

    When the MSA forced the US tobacco companies to act independently of one another, they were left with three alternative strategies, listed in a memo to Philip Morris Vice President Denise Keane by consultant Jim Tozzi16:

    1. establish a new programme within the individual company;

    2. join the efforts of an existing group; and

    3. establish a new organisational structure outside of the company.

    The Philip Morris External Research Program17,18 is an example of a new organisational structure established outside the company. The symposium series on inhalation toxicology funded through the International Life Sciences Institute, by Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds,19 is an example of joining the efforts of an existing group. We describe two new industry-funded research projects: Philip Morris’ research projects on cigarette additives and reduced-risk products through the Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO) and the Institute for Science and Health (IFSH).

    METHODS

    We located the documents cited in this paper by searching the 45 million pages of tobacco industry documents made public as a result of litigation against the tobacco companies. Between May 2005 and October 2006, we searched the University of California San Francisco Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://www.legacy.library.ucsf.edu) and Tobacco Documents Online (http://www.tobaccodocuments.org), using standard strategies,20 starting with keywords such as “IFSH”, “LSRO”, and “external research”. The initial searches yielded names of projects, research institutions and researchers, which were then searched. We also read the websites of the LSRO (http://www.lsro.org) and the IFSH (http://www.ifsh.org) and contacted these organisations to ask questions that were not answered on the websites. We found the IFSH Internal Revenue Service 990 forms on http://www.guidestar.org.

    RESULTS

    Life Sciences Research Office

    The LSRO was established in 1962 by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology to provide expert opinion on medical issues to the US Army,21 and was incorporated as an independent non-profit research organisation in 2001.22 Philip Morris entered into a contract with the LSRO to conduct reviews of and public meetings on cigarette additives, and reviews of the methods necessary to assess potentially reduced-risk tobacco products.23 Tobacco industry scientists are invited speakers and observers at many of the meetings.24–30 The end product of this process was a series of book-length reports, the first two of which (Evaluation of cigarette ingredients: feasibility31 and Evaluation of cigarette ingredients: scientific criteria32) were available for sale on the LSRO website as of September 2006.33 The intention of the Philip Morris Worldwide Scientific Affairs group through this project was to “provide a framework for cigarette ingredient review that can become a model for regulatory bodies”.34 In general, Philip Morris intended that the projects with LSRO meet the goals of the 2002 Institute of Medicine Report “Clearing the smoke: assessing the science based for tobacco harm reduction”.35

    In its descriptions of these projects on its website,23,36 the LSRO states, “In order to preserve the third-party independence of the review, PM will have no role in the design, conduct, deliberations, or the conclusions of the committees/panels.… All private communications between PM and LSRO will be restricted to authorized individuals and will be logged. Private communication between PM and members of the expert panels/expert committees is prohibited.” However, Philip Morris seems to have had more input into the LSRO process than the LSRO’s website description would suggest.

    In his initial letter to Philip Morris, outlining the way in which the LSRO would do the proposed cigarette additives project, LSRO director Michael Falk stated that “Expert Review Panel members will be selected for their scientific credentials, absence of bias and conflict of interest, active participation in the field, open mindedness, and willingness to devote the necessary time.”37 The LSRO received and even solicited input from Philip Morris to determine the membership of the panel. A memo from PM scientist Edward Carmines to fellow members of the Worldwide Scientific Affairs Department states:

    
 Attached please find a list of people LSRO is talking to for the SAB [probably the expert panel, since there was no additional scientific advisory board]. They are now evaluating potential conflicts of interest on each of these individuals. Let me know if you have any specific concerns about any of the candidates. I need documentation to provide LSRO with if we feel an individual is not qualified or is biased against the industry.38

    Later, the LSRO seems to have asked Philip Morris to suggest an epidemiologist and a cardiovascular toxicologist.39 This level of involvement in choosing the membership of the expert panel on cigarette additives stands in clear contrast with the LSRO’s public statement that Philip Morris would have no role in the design of the committees.

    The prohibition of private communication between Philip Morris and members of the expert panels also seems to have been interpreted in a way that would benefit Philip Morris. In a series of emails in December 2001, Philip Morris, scientist George Patskan asked what the sentence “Private communication between PM [Philip Morris] and members of the expert panels will be prohibited”40 meant. Carmines replied “I spoke to the LSRO and they do not see a need for clarification. We are restricted from discussing issues with the Board relating only to the charge of the committee. We can use them for other issues.”41

    The cigarette additives project had a single expert panel. The reduced risk project had a “core committee” that integrated the findings of smaller, topic-specific expert panels. The membership of the cigarette additives expert panel and the reduced risk core committee included many individuals who have financial ties with the US tobacco industry, including Philip Morris. Seven of the 15 panel and committee members have documented direct financial relationships with the tobacco industry, and two more have indirect or non-financial relationships. Thomas Slaga was awarded a Philip Morris External Research Program grant in May 200142 and Emmanuel Rubin was an expert witness for Philip Morris on at least two occasions (table 1).

    View this table:
    Table 1

     Tobacco industry relationships of Life Sciences Research Office Cigarette Additives Panel and Reduced Risk Core Committee members

    INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND HEALTH

    IFSH is a non-profit organisation formed in 2001 that “secures and administers grants for underfunded, under-researched health issues affecting at-risk populations, by forging meaningful collaboration with world-class organizations”82 in eight programme areas: tobacco science and health, gastrointestinal disease, neurodegenerative disorders, diseases from airborne contaminants, youth health and development, blood-based diseases, degenerative eye diseases and environmental causes of illness.83 Between October 2001 and September 2004, IFSH received US$9.5 million and spent US$3.0 million on their programmes.84–86 The vast majority of this money went to tobacco-related research.

    The IFSH has sponsored four symposia on tobacco: “Forum on tobacco science and health policy” (St Louis, Missouri, 200183), “Perceptions and realities in funding health research related to lifestyle factors underlying human disease in the 21st-century” (Prague, Czechoslovakia, 200483), “Biomarkers of harm, tobacco toxicity, and emerging cancer patterns and etiology” (St Louis, Missouri, 200583) and “Tobacco harm reduction and perception of risk” (Vienna, Austria, 200687). A symposium on pancreatic cancer is planned for 2006.88 Transcripts of the first two tobacco forums and an abstract list from the third were available on the IFSH website, but as of September 2006 we found no publications from these forums on PubMed, Google or Yahoo, searching the titles of the symposia.

    From 2002 to 2004, the IFSH granted US$3.9 million to academic scientists studying biomarkers of tobacco-smoke exposure and harm, tobacco harm reduction and toxicity of tobacco constituents.83,89–91 (Some of the grants are multi-year, so this figure does not match with programme expenditures reported to the Internal Revenue Service.) The IFSH also owns and, until 2006, provided online access to a collection of over 510 000 citations on smoking and health.92 The cost for managing the citation database was itemised separately in only the 2001 and 2002 reports to the International Revenue Services, equalling US$670 673 between October 2001 and September 2003.84,85

    Of the eight IFSH programme initiatives, six (neurodegenerative disorders, diseases from airborne contaminants, youth health and development, blood-based diseases, degenerative eye diseases and environmental causes of illness) report no activity. In financial years 2001 and 2002, gastrointestinal diseases received 1.4% of the total programme services outlay. The programme services outlays were not itemised in fiscal year 2003. In 2005, the gastrointestinal diseases programme initiative made its first research grants for pancreatic cancer: two 1-year grants90 totalling US$120 000.93

    The donor lists for all IFSH programme initiatives include “anonymous private donations” and “IFSH general fund”. The tobacco science and health initiative lists two additional sources of support: British-American Tobacco (BAT) and Brown and Williamson Tobacco (the former US subsidiary of BAT, which subsequently merged with RJ Reynolds). The gastrointestinal diseases initiative lists eight other sources of support: the Ann E McEnroe Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund Program (in honour of the IFSH president’s late wife), the Debbie Ketterer Memorial Tribute Fund (in honour of a board member’s late wife), and six small IFSH fund raisers82,94–97 that raised an average of US$16 683 each.95–97 Thus, it seems that the majority of the $9.5 million donated to IFSH between 2001 and 2004 was earmarked for the tobacco science initiative or general operating expenses.

    Of the 17 Tobacco Science and Health grants awarded and documented as of September 2006, 15 funded research on biomarkers, one on potential reduced exposure products, and one on chemopreventive agents for oesophageal cancer.89–91 The chemoprevention research grant was from a fund separate from the other tobacco science grants, the Dietrich Hoffmann Career Development Award, and provided 1 year of support at US$40 000.94

    What this paper adds

    • Before the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), the tobacco industry funded scientific research through the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) and the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR). Funding scientists through the CTR and CIAR allowed the industry to obtain supportive publicity, recruit “outside” scientists to serve as industry witnesses in lawsuits and regulatory forums, and, ultimately, create false controversy about the science that shows that smoking and secondhand smoke are dangerous.

    • Since the MSA, the industry has been funding scientific research. We examine two recent examples: the Life Science Research Office studies on cigarette additives and evaluating potential reduced-exposure products, and studies by a new granting organisation, the Institute for Science and Health.

    • Both groups obscure the true extent of involvement of the tobacco industry in their affairs.

    • Institutions and individual scientists who choose not to accept industry money need to be aware of both enterprises.

    • Regulatory officials and policy makers need to be aware that the studies these groups publish may not be as independent as they seem.

    Like LSRO, the IFSH presents itself as “independent”; as of 2005, its website stated:

    
 The Institute is independent, a critical factor in maintaining the credibility and integrity of research. A proprietary process is used to manage the overall research process. This process creates a firewall between the Institute’s sponsors and the researchers to whom the Institute supplies grant funding.98

    Likewise, the Request for Applications states:

    
 The Institute’s Board of Directors and the respective Advisory Council consider all offers of support before an offer of support is accepted. The Institute’s criteria for accepting grants from a given grantor require that the Institute’s credibility can be insured, so that the Institute can function completely independently of the grantor, for example, through unrestricted grants. The Institute, in turn, makes grants to external organizations and individuals.93

    The grant from BAT and Brown and Williamson is described as unrestricted in the Tobacco Science and Health Request for Applications.99 The Tobacco Science and Health Advisory Council reviews the proposals received, selects proposals to be reviewed, chooses the three outside reviewers each is sent to, and then decides which proposals to fund.93,100

    Although there is no obvious direct involvement of the tobacco industry in the granting process at IFSH, 7 of the 10 scientists on the Council had documented direct financial relationships with the tobacco industry (table 2). Roger Jenkins, who had been funded almost continuously by the tobacco industry between 1992 and 2006 (the time this paper was written), was a consultant to Brown and Williamson the year before he was appointed to the IFSH Tobacco Science and Health Advisory Board.101–103 Jenkins was appointed to the IFSH Board of Directors in 2004, and served on both the Board of Directors and the Tobacco Science and Health Advisory Board as of September 2006 (table 2).104,105

    View this table:
    Table 2

     Tobacco industry relationships of the Institute For Science and Health Tobacco Science and Health Advisory Council members

    Donors and applicants to the other programme initiatives at IFSH may not know that the majority of the funds the IFSH administers go to research on tobacco. Brown and Williamson and BAT are not listed on the home page or in the IFSH promotional video on the home page. The 10 min video describes IFSH’s mission as “to be involved in orphan diseases” and lists Graves’ disease, retinitis pigmentosa, Guillain–Barré syndrome, torticollis, neurodegenerative disorders, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Krabbe disease, pancreatic cancer, cerebral palsy, macular degeneration, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Tourette syndrome, tuberculosis and diseases from airborne contaminants.141 Two slides, titled “Adult current smoking among women” and “Adult current smoking by age droup & year” are on the screen for 3 s, while a grantee praises the Institute’s support for innovative research.141 The only discussion of tobacco is when the narrator says, “Before Ann McEnroe was even diagnosed [with pancreatic cancer], the Institute was supporting innovative and extremely necessary work to prevent disease: early diagnosis, risk factors, diet, smoking (emphasis added), environmental conditions affecting the health and well-being of everyone”.141 The focus, in their video, on pancreatic cancer and the diseases that IFSH hopes to fund, combined with the omission of discussion on the significant body of research it already has funded, minimises the role of funding from Brown and Williamson in their affairs.

    DISCUSSION

    When the US tobacco companies signed the MSA, they lost one of their primary economic and social relationships with scientists in academia. Since the 1930s, the US tobacco industry has recognised the strategic and financial importance of positive relationships with scientists, universities, journals and scientific societies.5 Funding academic scientists through the CTR and CIAR allowed the industry to obtain supportive publicity,6,7 recruit “outside” scientists to serve as industry witnesses in lawsuits and regulatory forums,8,9,10 and, ultimately, create false controversy about the science that shows that smoking and second-hand smoke are dangerous.7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 The CTR and CIAR were publicly represented as independent, while in fact both were closely controlled by industry scientists and lawyers.7,110,142

    The LSRO and IFSH are not exactly the same as the CTR and CIAR, but they do continue many of their functions. Both provide opportunities for professional and social interaction between industry personnel and academic researchers, which may help the industry identify and recruit future witnesses and consultants, the LSRO through its meetings25,143,144 and the IFSH through its conferences.145–147 The LSRO’s interpretation of the contract to prohibit only private communication between LSRO panel and committee members and tobacco industry employees regarding committee business would also permit such recruitment.

    Both the IFSH and the LSRO also obscure the true extent of involvement of the tobacco industry in their affairs. The Philip Morris LSRO project23 makes explicit claims of independence148 that are contradicted by the internal tobacco industry correspondence indicating that the LSRO gave Philip Morris a chance to suggest potential panel members39 and at least to comment on the potential members of the LSRO scientific panels.38 In all, 54% of the members of the Cigarette Additives Expert Panel and 44% of the members of the Reduced Risk Core Committee have documented direct financial relationships with the US tobacco industry (table 1). Some of these relationships date back decades and may provide a potential conduit for the tobacco industry’s input into LSRO committee reports.

    Although 97% of the funds the IFSH granted in 2001–5 support tobacco research and seem to come from BAT and its former US subsidiary, Brown and Williamson, the IFSH home page and promotional video do not mention these companies or discuss the tobacco research they fund. This obscures the connection between the IFSH and the tobacco industry. The fact that IFSH Tobacco Science and Health Council and Board of Directors member Roger Jenkins was consulting for Brown and Williamson just prior to the time the IFSH was founded provides a potential conduit for Brown and Williamson’s input into IFSH’s granting decisions.

    Institutions and individual scientists who do not want to accept industry money,1–4 and members of the public who do not want to donate to organisations funded primarily by the tobacco industry need to be aware of the new organisations the industry is channelling funding through. Regulatory officials and policy makers need to be aware that the studies being published on issues relevant to the industry, such as cigarette additives and “potentially reduced harm products”, may not be as independent as they seem.

    Acknowledgments

    This research is supported by the California Tobacco-related Disease Research Program (12FT-0144) and the National Cancer Institute (CA 87472). The California Tobacco-related Disease Research Program is a state government programme and the National Cancer Institute is a federal government department. None of the funding agencies participated in the conduct of this research or in the preparation of the manuscript. We thank Pascal Diethelm for his suggestions of the documents to consider.

    REFERENCES

    1. ↵
      Cohen JE, Ashley MJ, Ferrence R, et al. Institutional addiction to tobacco. Tob Control1999;8:70–4.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    2. Glantz SA. Tobacco money at the University of California. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2005;171:1067–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. Malone RE, Bero LA. Chasing the dollar: why scientists should decline tobacco industry funding. J Epidemiol Community Health2003;57:546–8.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      Chapman S, Shatenstein S. The ethics of the cash register: taking tobacco research dollars. Tob Control2001;10:1–2.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      Chesley AL. American Tobacco. 23 January 1931. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/chs34f00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    6. ↵
      Pepples E. Re: CTR budget. Brown and Williamson. 4 April 1978. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sec72d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    7. ↵
      Bero L, Barnes DE, Hanauer P, et al. Lawyer control of the tobacco industry’s external research program. The Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA1995;274:241–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      Samet JM, Burke TA. Turning science into junk: the tobacco industry and passive smoking. Am J Public Health2001;91:1742–4.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      Ong EK, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts subverting international agency for research on cancer’s second-hand smoke study. Lancet2000;355:1253–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      Tong EK, England L, Glantz SA. Changing conclusions on secondhand smoke in a sudden infant death syndrome review funded by the tobacco industry. Pediatrics2005;115:e356–66.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      Glantz SA, Barnes DE, Bero L, et al.The cigarette papers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1996.
    12. ↵
      Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA1998;279:1566–70.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      Barnes DE, Bero LA. Scientific quality of original research articles on environmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control1997;6:19–26.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      Bero LA. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep2005;120:200–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      Gregoire C. Master settlement agreement. 1998. http://www.naag.org/upload/1109185724_1032468605_cigmsa.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    16. ↵
      Tozzi JJ. Philip Morris. 16 February 1999. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tid04c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    17. ↵
      Hirschhorn N, Bialous SA, Shatenstein S. Philip Morris’ new scientific initiative: an analysis. Tobacco Control2001;10:247–52.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      Hirschhorn N, Bialous SA, Shatenstein S. The Philip Morris external research program: results from the first round of projects. Tobacco Control2006;15:267–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      MacDonald R. Who says tobacco industry “used” institute to undermine its policies. BMJ2001;322:576.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      Malone R, Balbach E. Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire? Tobacco Control2000;9:334–8.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. Celebrating our 44th anniversary. http://www.lsro.org/about/anniversary.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    22. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. About us: our history. http://www.lsro.org/about/history.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    23. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. An independent third party review of added ingredients used in the production of cigarettes. 2005. http://www.lsro.org/air/frames_air_plan.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    24. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. Open meeting of the added ingredients review committee. 2002. http://www.lsro.org/air/open_meeting/frames_attendees.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    25. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. Core committee meeting July 14–15, 2005. 2005. http://www.lsro.org/rrrvw/meetings/cc_2005_07_14/agenda.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    26. Life Sciences Research Office. Core committee meeting Oct 19–20, 2005. 2005. http://www.lsro.org/rrrvw/meetings/cc_2005_10_19/attendees.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    27. Life Sciences Research Office. Hazard identification and dose-response assessment committee meeting September 27–28, 2005. 2005. http://www.lsro.org/rrrvw/meetings/hidrac_2005_09_27/minutes.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    28. Life Sciences Research Office. Expert panel meeting of June 8–9, 2004 attendees. 2004. http://www.lsro.org/air/meetings/m_2004_06_08/frames_attendees.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    29. Life Sciences Research Office. Expert panel meeting of November 6–7, 2003 attendees. 2004. http://www.lsro.org/air/meetings/m_2003_11_06/frames_attendees.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    30. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. Expert panel meeting of March 6–7, 2003 attendees. 2003. http://www.lsro.org/air/meetings/m_030307/frames_attendees.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    31. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. Phase two: scientific criteria for the evaluation of ingredients added to cigarettes. Bethesda, MD: Life Sciences Research Office, 2004.
    32. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. Phase one: feasibility of testing ingredients added to cigarettes. Rockville, MD: Life Sciences Research Office, 2004.
    33. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. Air committee reports. 2005. http://www.lsro.org/air/frames_air_reports.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    34. ↵
      Philip Morris. LSRO (n01302). WSA meeting 20020827. 27 Aug 2002. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bzw34a00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    35. ↵
      Patskan G. Harm reduction overview: review of IOM regulatory principles and Philip Morris’ approach. Philip Morris, 12 Mar 2002. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vog77c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    36. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. Project description: evaluating the scientific evidence for potential reduced-risk tobacco products. 2006. http://www.lsro.org/rrrvw/rrrvw_project_description.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    37. ↵
      Falk M. Philip Morris, 11 May 2000. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fgl92c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    38. ↵
      Carmines E. List of potential candidates for LSRO panel. Philip Morris, 11 Jun 2001. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gft94c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    39. ↵
      Carmines EL. LSRO. Philip Morris, 14 Aug 2001. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uwe91c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    40. ↵
      Walk RA. Fw: LSRO question. Philip Morris, 13 Dec 2001. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hqu34a00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    41. ↵
      Carmines EL. LSRO question. Philip Morris, 17 Dec 2001. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dxy24a00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    42. ↵
      Philip Morris. External research agreement. May 2001. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lwu10c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    43. ↵
      Hoyt WT. Council for Tobacco Research, 14 Jan 1970. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kpt8aa00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    44. Hoyt WT. Grant no. 937r1. Council for Tobacco Research, 13 Nov 1974. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kuw16d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    45. ↵
      Hoyt W. Grant no. 986. Council for Tobacco Research, 15 Nov 1974. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fjn46d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    46. Council for Tobacco Research. Confidential report scientific advisory board meeting New York, New York, 28–30 Sep, 1 October 1976. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vpo59c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    47. ↵
      New actions. Council for Tobacco Research, 30 Jun 1977. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rps2aa00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    48. ↵
      Heck JD. Briefing of consultants Dr Ford and Dr Gardner. Lorillard, 11 Dec 2000. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/anh35a00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    49. ↵
      Heck JD. Ingredients consultants briefing: 20000914. Lorillard, 20 Sep 2000. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/spp35a00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    50. ↵
      Wagner BM, Cline MJ, Dungworth DL, et al. A safer cigarette? A comparative study. A consensus report. Inhalation toxicology. 2000;12 (Suppl 5) :1–65.
    51. ↵
      Gardner DE. Horton v. American Tobacco Co. Trial testimony of Dr. Donald E. Gardner. RJ Reynolds, 21 Jan 1988. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fsn14d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    52. ↵
      Lorillard. Brissenden Mcfarland. Confidential executive summary on Donald E. Gardner candidate for the position of executive director the center for indoor air research 870900. Lorillard, Sep 1987. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xfg21e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    53. ↵
      Campillo RA, Edwards KH, Gough GL, et al. Tobacco American, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, Morris Philip, Reynolds R. J. Robert t. Crayton, plaintiff, vs. Safeway, inc. Lorillard, 15 Nov 2000. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rlb74d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    54. ↵
      Rubin E. Blue cross and blue shield of New Jersey, et al. vs. Philip Morris, incorporated, et al. RJ Reynolds, 12 Apr 2000. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fvs20d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    55. ↵
      Rubin E. Phyllis small v. Lorillard tobacco company. Deposition of Emanuel Rubin, M.D. RJ Reynolds, 14 Nov 1997. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gvs20d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    56. ↵
      Rubin E. United States district court eastern district of New York Janet Sackman, et al. plaintiffs, vs. The Liggett Group, defendant. Civ. 93–4166 (ads) affidavit of Emanuel Rubin, M.D. Council for Tobacco Research, 25 Apr 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tkt30a00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    57. ↵
      Philip Morris. Expert disclosure statement Emanuel Rubin, M.D. estate of Burl Butler v. Philip Morris incorporated. Philip Morris, 1991. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dib66c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    58. ↵
      Jaeger R. Copy of final report. RJ Reynolds, 31 Mar 1995. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rha40d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    59. ↵
      Warren RH. Dr. Rudolph Jaeger environmental medicine incorporated RJR contract no. 96–774–004. RJ Reynolds, 30 Sep 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tth30d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    60. ↵
      Jaeger R. CH Technologies. Quotation. Philip Morris, 21 Apr 1994. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aaz59e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    61. ↵
      Colucci AV, Jaeger RJ. This letter will constitute our agreement pursuant to which you will act as consultant to R.J. Reynolds. RJ Reynolds, 21 Jan 1987. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cuf61c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    62. ↵
      Dozier MM. Progress report for 960400 and 960500. Lorillard, 6 Jun 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zqs23c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    63. ↵
      Corp. IRaD. International research and development corporation 790000 invoices. Philip Morris, 1979. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ofu68e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    64. Philip Morris. International Research and Development. Invoice. 15 Nov 1983. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/afu68e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    65. Philip Morris. International Research and Development. Invoice. 8 Feb 1988. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/weu68e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    66. ↵
      Philip Morris. International research and development corporation 800000 – 810000 invoices. 1985. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mfu68e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    67. ↵
      Burger GT. We appreciate your continued willingness to participate as a member of the expert panel. RJ Reynolds, 18 Aug 1999. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/akg50d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    68. ↵
      Burger G, Slaga T. We appreciate your continued willingness to participate as a member of the expert panel to review research on the Eclipse cigarette. RJ Reynolds, 18 Aug 1999. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/akg50d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    69. ↵
      Mosberg A. Completion date for 30-week i/p study. RJ Reynolds, 8 Aug 1990. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fpo83d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    70. Jowdy SL, Dimarco GR, Slaga TJ. This letter will constitute our agreement pursuant to which you will act as consultant. RJ Reynolds, 14 Aug 1987. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vrh84d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    71. Mosberg AT. Completion date for 30-week i/p study. RJ Reynolds, 8 Aug 1990. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fpo83d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    72. ↵
      Slaga TJ. After reading a recent article in the NEJM. RJ Reynolds, 5 May 1994. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mny03d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    73. ↵
      Kreisher J. Review of letter of intent proposal from Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Council for Tobacco Research, 2 Mar 1978. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wew96c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    74. ↵
      Gray D. Sciences Intl. Phosphine report. Philip Morris, 7 Jan 2000. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lfv27d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    75. ↵
      Lorillard. Sciences Intl. Risk assessment of phosphine gas exposures. Lorillard, Jan 2000. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uxx84c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    76. ↵
      Anderson EL. Sciences Intl. Lorillard, 16 Feb 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/coj23c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    77. ↵
      Popeo DJ, Washington Legal F. I want to thank you for R. J. Reynolds tobacco company’s generous charitable contribution of $75,000. RJ Reynolds, 23 Jul 1998. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uqr50d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    78. ↵
      Dimarco GR, Rodricks J, Environ C. Invoice for professional services. RJ Reynolds, 13 Apr 1987. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mtz74d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    79. ↵
      Dimarco GR, Rodricks JV, Environ. This letter will constitute our agreement. RJ Reynolds, 2 Feb 1989. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nzc14d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    80. ↵
      Logue M. Pm Philip Morris. Monthly activities for 920100. 6 Feb 1992. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pek87e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    81. ↵
      Logue M. Morris Philip. Monthly activities for 920300. 31 Mar 1992. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xjs14e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    82. ↵
      Institute For Science And Health. Home page. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    83. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. Tobacco science and health program initiative. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/tsh/Index.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    84. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. IRS form 990 2001. 2002 http://www.guidestar.org (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    85. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. IRS form 990 2002. 2003 http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/431/912/2003-431912103-1-9.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    86. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. IRS form 990 2003. 2004 http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/431/912/2004-431912103-1-9.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    87. ↵
      Institute For Science in Health. 2006 research symposium on tobacco and health. 2006 http://www.ifsh.org/Conf/tsh/2006.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    88. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. Gastrointestinal diseases program initiative. 2006 http://www.ifsh.org/gi/Index.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    89. ↵
      Institute FOR Science and Health. Projects 2002. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/tsh/Projects2002.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    90. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. Projects 2003. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/tsh/Projects2003.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    91. ↵
      Institute For Science And Health. Project 2004. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/tsh/Projects2004.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    92. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. About the collection. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/SmokingandHealthMiddle.htm (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    93. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. Request for applications. 2004 http://www.ifsh.org/RFA/RFA2004-A-011604.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    94. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. Institute for Science and Health news. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/News/Index.asp#ProjectFund (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    95. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. 2004 annual report. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/AnnualReport/2004AnnualReport.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    96. Institute For Science and Health. Fall 2004 newsletter. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/NewsLetter/Fall2004.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    97. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. Spring 2005 newsletter. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/NewsLetter/Spring2005.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    98. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. Who we are. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/WhoWeAre.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    99. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. Request for applications. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/Grants/tsh/RFA2005-A.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    100. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. Advisory council on tobacco science and health. 2006 http://www.ifsh.org/tsh/AC.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    101. ↵
    102. Institute for Science and Health. National advisory council on tobacco science and health. 2002 http://web.archive.org/web/20020213132009/ifsh.org/nac.htm (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    103. ↵
      Jenkins RA, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Proposed statement of work sidestream cigarette smoke: emissions and transformation March 19, 1999. Brown and Williamson, 19 Mar 1999. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yhm91d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    104. ↵
      Institute for Science and Health. IFSH board of directors. 2004 http://web.archive.org/web/20041017075123/www.ifsh.org/OurLeadership.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    105. ↵
      Institute for Science and Health. Board of Directors. 2006 http://www.ifsh.org/OurLeadership/BoardOfDirectors.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    106. ↵
      Oak Ridge National Laboratories. New ORNL project takes aim at heart of air quality, health issue. 2004 http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20040604-00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    107. ↵
      Gaworski CL. Lor Lorillard. Life sciences section 991200 project status report. Lorillard, 6 Apr 2000. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jgu64d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    108. ↵
      Hirnikel DJ. Ventilation and reduction technology—test methodology validating real times ets instruments. Philip Morris, Jan 2000. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uas25c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    109. ↵
      Jenkins RA, Palausky A, Counts RW, et al. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in sixteen cities in the United States as determined by personal breathing zone air sampling. J Expos Anal Environ Epidemiol1996;6:473–502.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    110. ↵
      Barnes R, Hammond SK, Glantz SA. The tobacco industry’s role in the 16 cities study of secondhand tobacco smoke: Do the data support the stated conclusions? Environ Health Perspectives2006;114:1890–7.
      OpenUrl
    111. ↵
      Tobacco Institute. CTR special projects on environmental tobacco smoke. Tobacco Institute, 30 Jun 1988. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hzs30c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    112. Green CR. Board of directors meeting ciar offices September 26, 1989. RJ Reynolds, 26 Sep 1989. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tvb14d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    113. ↵
      Center For Indoor Air R. Ciar-sponsored projects semi-annual status reports. RJ Reynolds, Jan 1991. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fpc14d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    114. ↵
      Hayes AW. Weekly highlights - biochemical/biobehavioral. RJ Reynolds, 11 Jul 1985. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wxz65d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    115. ↵
      Honaker CB, Jenkins RA, Horton AD. Determination of nitric oxide in the exposure chamber of the walton horizontal smoking machine. Council for Tobacco Research, 1976. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pse1aa00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    116. ↵
      Eckmeyer J, Leyden D. Citibank. Philip Morris, 18 Feb 1998. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/etn67e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    117. ↵
      Gorrod J, Jacobs P. Analytical determination of nicotine and related compounds and their metabolites. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1999.
    118. Hong MK, Bero LA. Tobacco industry sponsorship of a book and conflict of interest. Addiction2006;101:1202–11.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    119. ↵
      Leyden DE. Europe Philip Morris. I was pleased to hear your enthusiasm about the book project. Philip Morris, 14 May 1997. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jyk67e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    120. ↵
      Dempsey R. Morris Philip. Letter. Philip Morris, 13 Sep 1993. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bsd46e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    121. ↵
      Walk RA. Morris Philip. Your presentation at INBIFO. Philip Morris, 24 Mar 1992. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ado02e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    122. ↵
      Lister C. Covington Burling. Philip Morris, 8 Sep 1989. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fsp98e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    123. ↵
      Lister C. Covington Burling. Philip Morris, 3 Jul 1991. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gsp98e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    124. ↵
      Walk RA. Philip Morris. Your presentation at INBIFO. 30 Nov 1987. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ylz39e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    125. ↵
      Hoyt Wt CTR. Grant #986a. Council for Tobacco Research. 29 Nov 1977, http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/apv46d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    126. ↵
      Stone D. Council for Tobacco Research, 27 Apr 1977. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oym46d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    127. ↵
      Tricker A. Morris Philip. Grant entitled: In vitro studies on the metabolism of tobacco—specific n-nitrosamines, Philip Morris, 5 Jan 1999. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hdu85c00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    128. ↵
      Haussmann H. Resource allocation to adduct formation. Philip Morris, 17 Aug 1994. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ykt37e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    129. Richter E. Angebot fuer die messung. Philip Morris, 7 Sep 1994. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xpr42d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    130. ↵
      Richter E. Ludwig Maximilians Universitat Munchen. Fax 3 seiten. Philip Morris, 19 Dec 1994. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hqr42d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    131. ↵
      Richter E, Tricker AR. Effect of nicotine, cotinine and phenethyl isothiocyanate on 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) metabolism in the syrian golden hamster. Toxicology2002;179:95–103.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    132. Tricker AR, Brown BG, Doolittle DJ, et al. Metabolism of 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) in a/j mouse lung and effect of cigarette smoke exposure on in vivo metabolism to biological reactive intermediates. Adv Exp Med Biol2001;500:451–4.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    133. Brown BG, Richter E, Tricker AR, et al. The effect of a 2-h exposure to cigarette smoke on the metabolic activation of the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone in a/j mice. Chem Biol Interact2001;138:125–35.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    134. Richter E, Friesenegger S, Engl J, et al. Use of precision-cut tissue slices in organ culture to study metabolism of 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (nnal) by hamster lung, liver and kidney. Toxicology2000;144:83–91.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    135. ↵
      Richter E, Tricker AR. Nicotine inhibits the metabolic activation of the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone in rats. Carcinogenesis1994;15:1061–4.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    136. ↵
      Fields N, Chapman S. Chasing Ernst L Wynder: 40 years of Philip Morris’ efforts to influence a leading scientist. J Epidemiol Community Health2003;57:571–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    137. ↵
      Warner K. President’s column. Soc Res Nicotine Tobacco Newslett2004;10.
    138. ↵
      Rennard S, Crouse D, Burger G. RJR contract no. 97–773–1120. 17 Dec 1997. RJ Reynolds. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sal90d00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    139. ↵
      Walk R. INBIFO. Kolloquimsvortrag. 19 Mar 1991. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ags12e00 (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    140. ↵
      Philip Morris. Wissenschaftliches kolloquium. 1991 Mar: 2024492907 (accessed 9 Feb 2007),.
    141. ↵
      Institute for Science and Health. Video. 2005 http://www.ifsh.org/Video/Index.asp (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    142. ↵
      Barnes DE, Bero LA. Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the center for indoor air research. J Health Polit Policy Law1996;21:515–42.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    143. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. Core committee meeting April 27–28, 2005 attendees. 2005. http://www.lsro.org/rrrvw/meetings/cc_2005_04_27/attendees.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    144. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. Open meeting of the added ingredients review committee, attendees. 2005. http://www.lsro.org/air/open_meeting/frames_attendees.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    145. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. Conference proceedings forum on tobacco science and health policy. 2001. http://www.ifsh.org/Conf/tsh/2001transcript.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    146. Institute For Science and Health. 2005 US research forum on tobacco science and health. St Louis, MO: Institute for Science and Health, 2005.
    147. ↵
      Institute For Science and Health. 2006 research symposium on tobacco science and health: tobacco harm reduction and perception of risk. 2006. http://www.ifsh.org/Conf/tsh/2006/AbstractBooklet2006.pdf (accessed 9 Feb 2007).
    148. ↵
      Life Sciences Research Office. An independent third party review of ingredients used in the production of cigarettes panel members. 2004. http://www.lsro.org/air/frames_air_panel.html?content_air_panel_links.html (accessed 9 Feb 2007).

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests: None declared.