text:
Governance and Conduct of Studies
Under subsection (l) paragraph (2), the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (FSPTCA)1 specifically directs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop regulations or guidance in consultation with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) "on the design and conduct of such studies and surveillance" (emphasis added). The specific requirement to advise the FDA on guidance and regulation for the conduct of studies is significant, as conduct encompasses more than sound study design and research methods.
A proper study design can produce meaningful results, while an improper study design produces meaningless data. In contrast, the improper conduct of scientific studies may encompass not only poor study design and execution, but also unethical or illegal activity. Consequences of improper conduct, such as the falsification, manipulation, or destruction of research findings, not only result in a loss of trust and credibility, but also can result in significant harm. It is critical that all data submitted in support of modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) applications are developed, generated, analyzed, and presented in a way that protects and maximizes credibility, scientific rigor, and public trust.
The mandate to advise the FDA on the conduct of studies was viewed as particularly important by the committee, given the history of the tobacco industry's efforts to obscure the true health effects of smoking.
1 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, Public Law 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776 (June 22, 2009).
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 45
Governance and Conduct of Studies
Under subsection (l) paragraph (2), the Family Smoking Preven-
tion and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (FSPTCA)1 specifically directs the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop regulations or guidance
in consultation with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) "on the design and
conduct of such studies and surveillance" (emphasis added). The specific
requirement to advise the FDA on guidance and regulation for the conduct
of studies is significant, as conduct encompasses more than sound study
design and research methods.
A proper study design can produce meaningful results, while
an improper study design produces meaningless data. In contrast, the
improper conduct of scientific studies may encompass not only poor study
design and execution, but also unethical or illegal activity. Consequences
of improper conduct, such as the falsification, manipulation, or destruc -
tion of research findings, not only result in a loss of trust and credibility,
but also can result in significant harm. It is critical that all data sub mitted
in support of modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) applications are
developed, generated, analyzed, and presented in a way that protects and
maximizes credibility, scientific rigor, and public trust.
The mandate to advise the FDA on the conduct of studies was viewed
as particularly important by the committee, given the history of the
tobacco industry's efforts to obscure the true health effects of smoking.
1 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, Public Law 111-31, 123 Stat.
1776 (June 22, 2009).
OCR for page 45
While the industry currently acknowledges the health risks of smoking,
this history continues to affect the legitimacy of self-sponsored research
associated with their products. To provide confidence in the face of the
history of tobacco industry–sponsored and tobacco industry–conducted
research, additional measures may be required beyond what otherwise
might be expected of industries.
The mandate to advise the FDA on the conduct of studies presented
a unique challenge to the committee. The committee concluded that it
would be neither helpful nor adequate to simply rearticulate minimum
standards for research conduct; the basic standards for the ethically and
socially responsible conduct of science are well established. The commit -
tee felt strongly that mechanisms to enforce or otherwise affirm minimum
standards for the conduct of studies should be addressed, and would be
of much greater relevance to the FDA. As such, in this chapter the com -
mittee addresses not only the principles for ethical and proper conduct of
research, but also the governance mechanisms to ensure the ethical and
proper conduct of research as well.
This chapter begins with a brief retelling of the history of tobacco
research. The next section explores how the absence of governance and
a history of improper conduct have resulted in a situation where the
tobacco industry currently lacks the ability to independently produce and
disseminate comprehensive and credible data about tobacco products.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of one or more independent
organizations that may be needed for the governance of tobacco industry
studies in support of applications to market MRTPs.
To provide proper context for the committee's recommendations
regarding the design and conduct of studies to support the marketing
of MRTPs, it is necessary to briefly review the history of, and lessons
learned from, research conducted, funded, or supported by the tobacco
industry and its affiliate organizations. An earlier report from the IOM
provides a more thorough review of the history of tobacco harm reduction
approaches and products (IOM, 2001), so the current section is designed
to briefly review the major issues.
Historical Overview of Tobacco Harm Reduction
The issue of reducing the harm associated with tobacco use emerged
very early in the growth of the cigarette market in the United States.
In the 1930s and 1940s, before smoking-related health effects began to
OCR for page 45
be widely publicized, a prominent focus of advertising campaigns was
irritation, which served as a proxy for health concerns as it was linked to
prevalent theories of cancer (Kozlowski and O'Connor, 2010). The men-
tholated cigarette brand Kool was marketed in ways that highlighted the
"soothing" properties and claimed to help ease cold symptoms (Sutton
and Robinson, 2004). After the publication of epidemiologic evidence of
the harms of cigarette smoking (Doll and Hill, 1950, 1952, 1954; Wynder
and Graham, 1950), filtered cigarettes were heavily promoted to smokers
to allay health concerns. This resulted in the so called "tar derby" where
manufacturers competed to win customers on the basis of lower reported
tar and nicotine in cigarettes (Hoffmann and Hoffmann, 1997). On July 18,
1957, John Blatnik led 6 days of Congressional hearings on filtered cig-
arette advertising,2 the first of its kind in exploring the marketing of
tobacco products (Harris, 2011). These hearings revealed that much of this
marketing was fallacious, in that filters were largely ineffective, and that
tar and nicotine numbers were largely incomparable between brands
because manufacturers used different testing methods. The Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) and the industry came to an agreement to not use
tar and nicotine numbers in advertising in 1960, and themes in cigarette
advertising turned more toward lifestyle and imagery (Kozlowski and
O'Connor, 2010). By the 1960s, the cigarette market had shifted toward
filtered brands.
The demonstration that cigarette tar could induce cancer in animal
models resulted in the identification of tar as the primary aspect of con -
cern (Wynder et al., 1953). This led to a widespread belief that reducing
exposure to "tars" and nicotine would mitigate some of the associated
health risks. Early epidemiologic findings appeared to support this view,
inasmuch as those who used filtered brands were somewhat less likely to
develop lung cancer (Wynder and Stellman, 1979). At the time, however, it
was not broadly accepted that smoking was driven by nicotine addiction,
nor that smokers might adjust their smoking behaviors to maintain their
accustomed nicotine doses (NCI, 2001). In the early 1960s, the FTC began
working with industry to refine a test method to compare brands, and
this was implemented beginning in 1964 (NCI, 1997). Many public health
advocates and institutions, including the National Cancer Institute (NCI),
believed that publicizing tar values and switching to lower tar cigarettes
would generate a public health gain (Hoffmann and Hoffmann, 1997).
Tragically, rather than decreasing disease risk, the use of these products
likely had a profoundly negative effect on the public's health (NCI, 2001).
2U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Subcommittee of the Committee on Government
Operations. False and misleading advertising (filter-tip cigarettes). 85th Cong., 1st Sess. July 18–26,
OCR for page 45
In 1968, in response to calls for greater attention to the problem of
lung cancer associated with smoking, the NCI established the Tobacco
Working Group, an advisory group to establish a research agenda on the
development of less hazardous cigarettes (Parascandola, 2005a, 2005b).
This working group comprised members from government, academia,
and the tobacco industry. From 1968 through about 1980, the Smoking and
Health Program spent more than $50 million in research, 74 percent of
which was directed toward chemical and biological assays of cigarette
prototypes (Parascandola, 2005a). Documents revealed that the industry
members of the working group helped to set research priorities and steer
research findings and reporting (Parascandola, 2005b).
Internal tobacco industry documents provided insight into the indus-
try's knowledge of the relationships between cigarette smoking behav-
iors and cigarette design. The industry's greater knowledge of human
smoking behavior allowed for the design of "elastic" products, from
which different amounts of smoke (and nicotine) could be extracted to
satisfy consumer needs (Hammond et al., 2006; Kozlowski and O'Connor,
2002). Tobacco companies used many techniques to continue the appear-
ance of relatively healthier cigarettes (Pollay and Dewhirst, 2002). Prod-
uct features intending to lower toxin yields, as measured by the FTC
machine, included air dilution and the reduction of tobacco density (NCI,
2001). The dilution of mainstream smoke by air could be accomplished
in a number of ways, including increased paper porosity and diffusivity,
porous tipping, and the inclusion of ventilation holes in the filter. These
features acted to increase burn rate and to reduce the concentration of
smoke taken at the tip. The reduction of tobacco density was achieved
through engineered tobaccos, such as "expanded" tobacco, which was
essentially "puffed" using gases to decrease density. This modification
was advantageous for tobacco companies because less dense cigarettes
burn more quickly when left in smoking machines, meaning that the
measured tar yields were reduced by virtue of decreasing the number of
puffs taken. Filter ventilation, however, was the key feature that drove
cigarette elasticity. Ventilation holes were often placed in locations that are
likely covered by the smoker's lips or fingers. Because they also acted to
cool smoke and reduce the puff concentration, they also served to make
the smoke taste and feel lighter to the smoker (Kozlowski and O'Connor,
2002). Finally, the inclusion of ventilation holes reduced resistance to
draw, which in turn made it easier for smokers to draw more smoke
from the cigarette for a given amount of puffing effort (Kozlowski and
O'Connor, 2002; NCI, 2001). Some products were explicitly designed to
be highly elastic, including the product Barclay, introduced by Brown &
Williamson in the early 1980s. The filter design used grooved air channels
that made it very easy for smokers to compensate, while giving very low
OCR for page 45
yield for tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide. The FTC eventually ruled the
FTC method did not accurately measure the brand's delivery (Kozlowski
et al., 2005).
Initially, lower-tar cigarettes were marketed as distinct brands. How -
ever, this changed when Philip Morris introduced Marlboro Lights in
1972, beginning a broad trend toward product line extensions (Pollay
and Dewhirst, 2002). Line extensions carried associations with the parent
brand (e.g., taste, quality) and likely attracted more smokers to switch
to lower-tar cigarettes. The history of light and low-tar cigarettes shows
that tobacco harm reduction research—despite its potential to reduce
risk—deserves careful and unique consideration because the migration
of smokers toward lower-yield cigarettes has not improved either the
health of individuals or the public (Harris et al., 2004; NCI, 2001; Thun
and Burns, 2001).
In the 1980s, industry research and development turned toward more
radical reengineering of products, in part as a result of rising litigation
risk and in response to a growing smoke-free environments movement. In
1989, R.J. Reynolds introduced Premier, which it claimed as a smokeless
cigarette. This product was withdrawn and later reengineered as Eclipse,
which continued to be sold until 2008. Philip Morris tested various ver-
sions of an electrically heated cigarette smoking system, which used an
external heating element to heat tobacco on specially designed cigarettes
to produce smoke. The Accord, the first such system, was introduced in
1990, and the most recent incarnation was the Heatbar, tested by Philip
Morris International in Switzerland from 2006 to 2009. Other approaches
focused on applying technology to selectively reduce toxicants in tradi -
tional cigarette designs (e.g., Advance, Marlboro UltraSmooth, and Omni).
Early in the 2000s, evidence began to emerge from Sweden that
showed dramatic reductions in smoking-related disease coincident with
a rise in the use of snus, a form of moist smokeless tobacco (Foulds et al.,
2003; Henningfield and Fagerstrom, 2001). Snus, as produced in Sweden,
was regulated as a food product and thus subject to quality controls that
led manufacturers to reduce levels of toxicants such as nitrosamines and
heavy metals. These data encouraged some in tobacco control that harm
reduction was possible if smokers could be convinced to adopt use of
smokeless tobacco (Kozlowski, 2007), while others raised serious con-
cerns about unintended consequences (Tomar et al., 2009). This message
was seized upon in the United States, where smoke-free restrictions were
growing, and existing smokeless tobacco companies began to aggressively
court smokers. By 2009, the two major smokeless tobacco companies—
Conwood Sales Company, LLC, and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company—
had been purchased by the leading cigarette manufacturers (R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company and Philip Morris, respectively), horizontally integrat -
OCR for page 45
ing the tobacco market. Both companies introduced forms of snus into
the U.S. market, carrying cigarette brand names (Marlboro and Camel).
Other tobacco products have also been promoted as having potential
for harm reduction. In 2001, Star Scientific introduced dissolvable tobacco
products (Ariva and later Stonewall), lozenges made from powered
tobacco that would be used orally and disintegrate. In 2009, R.J. Reynolds
followed suit with Camel Strips, Sticks, and Orbs, all different configura -
tions of dissolvable tobacco. In 2006, electronic nicotine delivery systems
(commonly referred to as e-cigarettes) emerged; these products have a
physical form that resemble a traditional cigarette, but they use electrical
heating elements to vaporize a nicotine containing glycerol solution. Some
scientists have suggested these products hold promise for harm reduc -
tion, if subject to proper testing, regulation, and quality control (Etter et
al., 2011).
Scientific Research Conducted, Funded, or
Supported by the Tobacco Industry
In examining scientific standards for the design and conduct of
studies related to MRTPs, an additional relevant consideration is the past
behavior of the newly regulated industry. Cigarette manufacturers stated
for more than six decades, either implicitly or explicitly, that cigarettes
were not dangerous to health (Cummings, 2003; Cummings et al., 2002).
However, industry officials and tobacco scientists were aware of smok -
ing's relationship to cancer risks as early as the 1940s, with broad inter-
nal acceptance seen by the late 1950s (Cummings et al., 2007). The wide
discrepancy between internal knowledge and public posturing required
efforts to maintain a perception among the general public and policy mak-
ers that scientific controversy still surrounded the relationship between
smoking and health, and scientific research was essential to this.
Like most industries, tobacco manufacturers have maintained signifi-
cant research and development arms, with a significant portion focused
on product development and testing. Much of this was directed toward
optimizing products in terms of taste and nicotine delivery (Carpenter
et al., 2007; Cook et al., 2003; Harris, 2011; Hurt and Robertson, 1998;
Megerdichian et al., 2007; Wayne et al., 2004). However, the tobacco indus-
try has also engaged in health-relevant research on its products, includ-
ing nicotine self-administration (DeNoble and Mele, 2006), mental illness
(Hirshbein, 2011), and the composition and toxicity of secondhand smoke
(Schick and Glantz, 2007a). Philip Morris determined that cigarette filters
released inhalable fibers, yet never reported this to consumers (Pauly et
al., 2002). Documents reveal that lawyers exerted considerable control over
internal research, primarily to guard against product liability lawsuits
OCR for page 45
(Hanauer et al., 1995). Industry scientists did publish selected internal
research, sometimes in the form of monographs or conference proceedings
(Dunn, 1973; International Smoking Behaviour Conference and Raymond
E. Thornton, 1978), and toxicological and chemical research was often
published over the years. In addition to the recognized tobacco-specific
journals Tobacco Science and Beitraige zur Tabakforschung [Contributions to
Tobacco Research], tobacco industry scientists and consultants served on
editorial boards of a number of scientific journals, including Indoor and
Built Environment, Inhalation Toxicology, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacol-
ogy, Mutagenesis, and the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (Bitton et al., 2005;
Garne et al., 2005).
A number of companies also sponsored external research, and a
review of documents found that tobacco industry lawyers, rather than
scientific merit, heavily influenced the selection of external research pro-
grams with the intent to improve public relations, divert public focus
away from the negative health consequences of tobacco use, and influence
policy (Bero et al., 1995). The tobacco industry's scientific consulting pro -
gram on secondhand smoke was largely attorney managed and intended
to sway public opinion, but it also influenced funded scientists in terms
of how they could express their research in public debates and confer-
ences (Muggli et al., 2003). Further analyses of documents show a 40-year
effort by Philip Morris USA to fund and influence the work of Dr. Ernst
Wynder, a highly respected researcher on smoking and health (Fields and
Chapman, 2003). The industry sought to fund research into alternative
explanations of smoking-health links, including genetics (Gundle et al.,
2010), stress (Landman et al., 2008; Petticrew and Lee, 2011), personality
factors (Eysenck, 1991), and environmental pollution. Cataldo et al. (2010)
describe industry efforts to gain control of the Framingham heart health
cohort study by funding its principal investigator, so as to gain access to
the dataset to produce favorable reanalyses questioning the link between
smoking and heart disease. Research on secondhand smoke and health
was designed and analyzed so as to achieve favorable conclusions (Barnes
et al., 2006; Neilsen and Glantz, 2004; Ong and Glantz, 2000; Schick and
Glantz, 2005; Tong et al., 2005; Yano, 2005). Other studies have shown
that research funded by industry tended to come to different conclusions
about secondhand smoke health effects (Barnes and Bero, 1998) and the
economic impacts of smoking restrictions (Scollo et al., 2003).
The Tobacco Industry Research Committee, which was created in
1954 in response to emerging evidence of smoking-related cancer risks,
later subdivided into the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), which
funded research, and the Tobacco Institute (TI), which focused on lobby-
ing and communications. While the CTR existed, nominally, to fund inde-
pendent research into smoking and health, it was part of the broader
OCR for page 45
public relations approach to questioning the validity of smoking-health
links. Internal documents show that the organization was controlled by
industry lawyers and funded special projects to favored scientists who
would reliably cast doubt on smoking-disease claims (Bero et al., 1995).
Similarly, the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), organized in 1988,
funded external peer-reviewed research as well as special projects. The
CIAR was formed in response to growing calls to limit indoor smoking,
and in particular the 1986 Surgeon General's report on involuntary smok-
ing. Barnes and Bero (1996) examined the CIAR's project portfolio and
showed that while 70 percent of the peer-reviewed projects were on topics
not related to secondhand smoke, 63 percent of the special projects were
related to secondhand smoke. Furthermore, while only 2 percent of the
peer-reviewed projects had what could be termed "pro-industry" conclu-
sions, the special projects showed 29 percent in favor of industry (Barnes
and Bero, 1996). The industry also supported the Associates for Research
into the Science of Enjoyment (ARISE), an organization created in 1988 in
direct response to the classification of nicotine as an addictive drug by the
U.S. Surgeon General (Landman et al., 2008; Smith, 2006). ARISE aimed to
tout the health benefits of the use of legal substances such as tobacco in
terms of stress relief and performance enhancement, and received more
than 90 percent of its support from the tobacco industry. While ARISE did
not sponsor research, it did organize symposia, conferences, and publica-
tions that served to disseminate its members' research (many of whom
were funded by the tobacco industry). The Master Settlement Agreement
dissolved the TI, CTR, and CIAR in 1998.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Findings
In 1999, the federal government filed against the tobacco industry
(Phillip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, British American
Tobacco, Lorillard, and Liggett) for violating the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. District Judge Gladys Kessler stated in
her 2006 findings of fact that the tobacco companies "conspired together
to violate the substantive provisions of RICO."3 A key element furthering
the conspiracy was the coordination of research activities (such as those
described above) designed to cast doubt on the health risks of smoking.
Kessler noted in the findings of fact that
Defendants attempted to and, at times, did prevent/stop ongoing research,
hide existing research, and destroy sensitive documents in order to protect
their public positions on smoking and health, avoid or limit liability for
smoking and health-related claims in litigation, and prevent regulatory
limitations on the cigarette industry.
3 United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1, 26 (D.D.C. 2006).
OCR for page 45
Although the government was not permitted to recover monetary
damages (disgorgement of illegal profits, which were estimated at $280
billion), the defendants were ordered to engage in corrective advertising,
remove misleading labels from products, and submit to judicial oversight.
The ruling has survived several levels of appeal. Most recently, Philip
Morris et al. have argued that FDA regulation is a sufficient deterrent to
future violations, and thus the RICO case should be vacated. In a recent
opinion, Judge Kessler noted that FDA regulation was unlikely to deter
defendants' future bad acts because they were vigorously fighting the
regulations via other court cases and regulatory challenges.4
Conclusions on Scientific Research Funded or
Conducted by the Tobacco Industry
The history of research conducted, funded, or supported by the
tobacco industry is not raised to be retributive or punitive, but simply to
acknowledge that past actions reflect on the credibility of the industry's
current research, which may pose a problem for regulators, particularly
in the contentious area of MRTPs.
An additional concern is that any perception of cavalier attitudes
to tobacco research may tarnish the reputation of the FDA itself. The
tobacco control statute places a high-capacity and historically well-trusted
agency in the practice of regulating a commodity quite different from the
products historically under its purview. The FDA carries a near-unique
stature in the degree of public trust it has received, and there are plausible
reasons to believe that this reservoir of public trust has imparted stability
to the agency and has rendered its difficult combination of tasks easier
(Carpenter, 2010).
If data generated for the FDA by tobacco companies is perceived to
lack credibility, the FDA could in general, and the Center for Tobacco
Products (CTP) could in particular, find its reputation, its scientific cred -
ibility, and its public trust severely compromised and perhaps irreversibly
damaged. This reputational damage to the FDA and to public health insti-
tutions is a critical issue. Concerns about problematic data have surfaced
occasionally in the past with the pharmaceutical industry; there is little
reason to think that such scandals will not arise with the tobacco industry.
Yet given any scandal, the consequences of the perception that the FDA
and the CTP wrongly trusted tobacco industry claims will be far worse in
terms of public, scientific, and legislative credibility.
These concerns are not isolated; similar concerns have been raised by
the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse (NACDA). In providing
guidance to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) about provid -
4 United States v. Phillip Morris, Inc. 2011 U.S. Dist. (D.D.C., June 22, 2011).
OCR for page 45
ing research funding to potential grantees who also receive money from
the tobacco industry, the NACDA made several points to consider, includ-
ing that receiving funding from the tobacco industry could compromise
perceived objectivity and credibility of research, and that "any connec-
tion between tobacco industry supported research (or tobacco industry
scientists) and NIDA could negatively impact NIDA's credibility and the
public's trust in NIDA funded research" (NIDA, 2011).
The conduct of tobacco product research presents a case that is unique
from other FDA-regulated commodities. First, there is profound public
distrust in both the tobacco industry and in the research it sponsors. Since
the 1960s, public trust in tobacco companies has been at historical lows
compared to virtually all other institutions or industries (Ashley and
Cohen, 2003; Harris Interactive, 2003; NCI, 2008), and these patterns have
not abated in recent years (Harris Interactive, 2010). Prior to the FSPTCA,
commercial tobacco products were not regulated by the FDA (White et
al., 2007). As a result, compared to other industries that develop products
also requiring premarket approval (the drug and device industries), the
tobacco industry does not possess, and will not possess for some time to
come, the same degree of organization; accepted measures, methods, and
models; and routine involvement and consultation of qualified experts.
The fundamental problem that confronts the FDA is a critical short-
age of credible and reliable evidence about the effects of MRTPs. The
history of public distrust and the absence of governance in the tobacco
industry have created an isolated industry that lacks not only the exper-
tise to produce the necessary range of credible and reliable data, but also
the trustworthiness to acquire external expertise and avenues to dissemi -
nate acquired data. The committee also recognizes that other industries,
including the pharmaceutical and device industries, may develop and
sponsor MRTP candidates, and although these institutions should also be
held to high standards for the design and conduct of studies, they may
not have to overcome the same hurdles in maintaining or restoring cred-
ibility to their research.
Role of Governance in Sustaining Credibility
in Tobacco Industry Research
The idea that research on commercial products that carry public health
risks should be supervised, funded, or structured by independent entities
has important precedents and models (Marks, 1997). When pharmaceuti-
cal and medical product companies engage universities, medical schools,
OCR for page 45
or research hospitals to conduct research, the institutions conducting the
research studies contractually embed research autonomy into the funding
arrangements, and all such studies in human subjects are approved by
institutional review boards (IRBs) before they commence. So too, human
subjects research is overseen by the National Institutes of Health, the Office
of Human Subjects Research of the Public Health Service, and the FDA
itself. This is true of all researchers receiving public funds and those con-
ducting research on an FDA-regulated product (FDA, 2010; HHS, 2009;
White et al., 2007). Academic and medical journals also exercise a gate-
keeping and oversight role for clinical research with human subjects.
The production of reliable and credible data depends upon building
rigor, oversight, and independence into the entire research process. It is
well recognized that data problems often cannot be detected after study
completion; therefore, integrity and accountability need to be built into
the research throughout the study's execution. For balanced and rigor-
ous evaluation of data in support of any marketing application, the FDA
has traditionally expected or required independent oversight. Unlike the
tobacco industry, clinical research models in the pharmaceutical indus -
try were developed in academic medicine and pharmacology circles in
the 20th century, with significant input from pharmaceutical industry
partnerships, which had from the 1940s onward sought pharmacologi-
cal, statistical, and other medical expertise for the improvement of their
experimental methods (Marks, 1997). Various officials and bureaus of the
FDA itself also participated in the modernization of the research para-
digm in pharmaceuticals, either through regulation or through advisory
or participatory roles (Carpenter, 2010). The credibility of data in support
of new pharmaceutical products or medical devices is, in other words,
supported by a national and global infrastructure of research that has
taken decades to evolve, and even now it is not free of problems.
The FSPTCA places the CTP in a difficult position. The center will now
be regulating tobacco companies as product sponsors, without the long-
run institutional knowledge of these companies that is gained through
decades of regulation and oversight. There is not an established set of
regulatory practices for the review of MRTPs, nor is there an established
set of federal research standards for the design, conduct, analysis, moni-
toring, and completion of studies in support of MRTPs. Development of
the "clinical trial" industry for MRTPs is, in a sense, being initiated in
the next few years, because current tobacco industry practices suggest
a degree of immaturity in the development of methods, measures, and
standards (Rees et al., 2009).
Although industry- and company-sponsored studies are very com-
mon, they have been largely unregulated in the way pharmaceutical
trials have been, and they lack the same level of oversight, governance,
OCR for page 45
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the tailpipe emissions
standards of the late 1970s. Because there was little agreement on the sci-
ence supporting air quality regulations, it was increasingly difficult for
dialogue between industry and regulators to proceed. Led by the efforts
of Cummins Engine executive Charles Powers and EPA official Michael
Walsh, the Health Effects Institute (HEI) was created in 1980 (Jasanoff,
1990; Keating, 2001).
The HEI is a nonprofit corporation with approximately one-half of its
funding coming from the automobile industry and the other half coming
from the federal government and other government sources. HEI is based
in Boston, Massachusetts, and is well situated among the top research uni-
versities and hospitals. A number of scholarly analyses have described the
HEI as having successfully managed the boundary between industry and
government, as well as between the research community in health effects
and the research community in air quality (Keating, 2001).
The HEI has multiple roles, including the funding of research through
competitive requests for applications (RFAs). These RFAs serve, like those
developed by a grant agency, to create open competition. Such open
competition ensures that research funds will not be directed consistently
or privately to those recipients most likely to produce certain outcomes,
and it also promotes implicit competition among researchers on the basis
of research quality and rigor rather than upon loyalty to the financial
The relevant organizational structure of the HEI includes a board of
directors and three committees. The board of directors is independent
of the sponsors of the institute, and it "acts as the principal guardian of the
HEI's objectivity" (quoted in Keating, 2001). The board monitors potential
conflicts of interest and oversees the institute's staff, checks appointments
to its expert committees, and monitors sponsored research projects. Below
the board rest three committees. The Health Research Committee devel-
ops 5-year plans for research and awards research funds to investigators.
The Health Research Committee also oversees research investigators and
their work. Independently of the Health Research Committee, the Health
Review Committee evaluates research produced by HEI-funded investi-
gators and interprets the meanings of such research for policy makers. A
third committee, the special Committee on Emerging Technologies, exam-
ines new fuels and their potential environmental and health impacts. A key
feature of this structure is the independence of the board of directors from
the sponsors and from the staff, and the independence of the two principal
committees from one another (Keating, 2001).
The Health Research Committee develops and publishes the RFAs
through which competitive research is applied for and ultimately funded.
Project selection is undertaken by expert panels that convene under the
OCR for page 45
authority of the committee and review and rank applications. The com-
mittee and HEI staff often work with the sponsor of the successful appli -
cation to refine the scope and methods of the research project, examining
research design, methods of analysis, and data. When research com-
mences, the research committee oversees the research, reviewing progress
reports from the investigators, overseeing quality audits of the project
research, and visiting the investigators' research sites.
There are important limits to the HEI model that must be considered
when thinking about it as a possible prototype for a TRGE. Perhaps the
most important difference between the HEI and any TRGE is that the
HEI does not fund projects in support of marketing applications; rather,
it funds projects that contribute to general knowledge. Hence the com -
mercial stakes of the research funded by the HEI may be somewhat less
than the kind of research that could be funded by a TRGE. In particular, it
may be problematic for individual tobacco companies to contribute funds
to a TRGE if those funds will be used to fund research that potentially
benefits a competitor's product more than its own product. As such, it
will be important to distinguish between two different types of research:
(1) individual product testing and (2) research that contributes to general
knowledge, including research on better methods for product testing.
Institutions like the HEI may be better suited to develop study methods
or standards, rather than individual product evaluation. It should also be
noted that the public health standard articulated in the FSPTCA is differ-
ent from any other existing premarket approval standard. Additionally,
the level of public, medical, and academic distrust in the tobacco industry
and its research is much greater than any that has ever buffeted the auto -
mobile industry. Important issues of trust would need to be confronted in
order for any such model to be entertained.
Another possibility for an organizational model lies in the Reagan-
Udall Foundation (RUF), which advises the FDA on modernizing regula-
tory science. It conducts and oversees studies on regulatory science, par-
ticularly in the emerging fields of pharmacogenomics and genomic-based
prediction of drug response and adverse event risk. The RUF receives
grants from independent foundations for its work in advancing regula-
tory science, ranging from work in systems toxicology funded by the
Komen Foundation to work on antitubercular drugs in the critical path to
tuberculosis drug regimens. The RUF has a board of directors composed
of a diverse mix of consumer representatives, industry representatives,
scientific and medical authorities, and government officials; none of these
groups accounts for a majority of the board's members. The foundation
has implemented a number of strategies to attempt to ward off conflict of
interest and undue industry influence. The RUF prohibits board members
from participating in any activity or matter in which they have a financial
OCR for page 45
interest. RUF board members must also openly disclose any financial
interest they may have, or have had in the past, in entities doing business
with the RUF and in any FDA-regulated entity. Additionally, the board
requires conflict-of-interest measures be undertaken for each individual
project the foundation undertakes. All projects undertaken by the RUF
are reviewed by its board of directors and are subject to an independent
review. While the RUF has some features, it has not existed for as long as
the HEI, and thus it has far less of a track record. It also has no experience
in funding projects. Still, the attempted controls for bias and conflict of
interest are potentially noteworthy in thinking about a TRGE.
It should be noted that several third-party institutions have been
engaged in independent tobacco research, including the Life Sciences
Research Office and the Institute for Science and Health. However, the
credibility and independence of these organizations have been ques-
tioned, which illustrates the importance of oversight, transparency, and
governance (Schick and Glantz, 2007b).
Possible Design and Structure of a TRGE
Funding of a TRGE
A TRGE could receive funding from a mix of public and private sources.
Independent organizations and foundations would also provide poten-
tial sources of funds, especially those foundations specializing in health
research and risk reduction. The consideration of industry funding would
need to be cautious. Unregulated or unstructured industry funding could
potentially contribute to a perception of bias, so it is quite possible that
the funding from tobacco companies and potential MRTP sponsors could
be structured in a tax-like manner. The HEI model of regular, equalized
contributions from members of the industry—with expected contributions
independent of research and no bargaining over HEI governance between
contributions—would be a useful model for consideration.
Oversight Board
A board of directors or general oversight board for any TRGE should
be placed in a position of responsibility for maintaining the credibility
and objectivity of the organization. It would be critical to ensure that a
TRGE board be independent both of the FDA and the tobacco/MRTP
industry. It would be prudent to institute a conflict-of-interest policy
with prohibitions on participation in any matter where the board mem-
ber may have a financial or other conflict of interest or plausible bias. An
oversight board would need to be composed of a diverse membership—
OCR for page 45
nontobacco-related businesses, medicine and academics, consumers—
with each individual openly disclosing any potential conflicts of interest.
A board could assist the entity in selecting research contractors in any
research competition.
Research Protocol Advice
An important feature of the entity would be in ensuring the indepen-
dent design of research protocols by researchers. Independence of research
design from the study sponsor is a critical feature of rigorous research, as
the design of a study (its measures, its statistical methods, even the par-
ticulars of the hypothesis tested, duration of treatment, and other features)
can deeply shape the research outcome. If research funding were provided
through a TRGE, the competition might create additional incentives to
cleave to robust research design models.
Organization, Oversight, and Training
As with the HEI, a TRGE could monitor contractors' research per-
formance, provide staff members and/or training for IRB members at
universities and contract research organizations, and set up Data Monitor-
ing Committees (DMCs), including Data and Safety Monitoring Boards
(DSMBs) and Observational Study Monitoring Boards (OSMBs). Given
the nascent character of research in the MRTP field, it would be important
for any research team to receive and consider advice midstream on study
conduct. Independent monitoring of IRBs and DMCs/DSMBs/OSMBs
would also be important, given the lack of broad university- and hospital-
based experience in conducting research on MRTPs. It is doubtful that the
CTP would be able to handle these responsibilities on its own.
Contract Mechanisms
A TRGE could fund research in several ways. It could issue contracts
to independent investigators or contract research organizations, including
commercial laboratories as well as hospital or academic contract research
organizations. Another possibility and one well worth considering would
be an RFA model, not unlike the model of the HEI or the funding models
used by government granting agencies. Upon the preparation of an MRTP
application that would involve premarket or postmarket clinical studies,
the TRGE could develop and post an RFA for each study—or suite of
studies—that the sponsor would need to have performed in order for an
MRTP application to be considered complete by the CTP. Some (if not
many) of the details of these studies would be left unspecified at the time
OCR for page 45
of the RFA, so that upon the award of an investigator contract the TRGE
could participate in the design of the study.
Quality Control
It would be critical for any TRGE to ensure adherence to rigorous
quality control measures on the part of researchers conducting studies for
an MRTP application to the FDA. Keating identifies a
zealous approach to quality control on the part of HEI-funded investiga-
tors. Adherence to quality control guidelines and favorable reports from
quality assurance audits, along with rigorous peer review, are the first
line of defense against attacks on the credibility of the research (Keating,
The TRGE could promulgate good research practices for MRTPs in
conjunction with academic specialists (e.g., Rees et al., 2009). Consistent
with the HEI model and with other forms of research governance at uni-
versities and hospitals, the TRGE could perform scheduled or random
data audits and other forms of site-specific research investigation. The
TRGE could also assist the CTP in ensuring that postmarket studies are
being launched, monitored, and completed in a timely fashion.
After extensive consideration of both the unique nature of the tobacco
industry, the FSPTCA, and other relevant precedents, the committee iden-
tified a number of potential considerations that should guide the gover-
nance of tobacco industry studies.
1. Research Funding. Although the funding of such research will
usually originate with the company developing the product, there may
be cases where sponsors themselves may wish to have the research over-
seen or conducted independently. The FDA should expect that some of
the research performed for MRTP applications that it reviews will be
performed or conducted independently, by choice of sponsor. This raises
the issue of how such third-party research can be governed.
2. Research with Special Populations. In some cases, especially that
of experimentation with adolescents or populations vulnerable to high
use rates, the FDA may wish to require or expect that research should be
overseen by an independent third party who would be the recipient of
tobacco industry study funding but would be responsible for
• choice of investigators,
• funding of investigators,
OCR for page 45
• oversight of studies,
• data collection,
• analysis of results, and
• publication of results.
3. Data Transparency. It is critical that the public have access to the
totality of the data on MRTPs; therefore, all trials should be registered on
the National Library of Medicine website Clinicaltrials.gov with the same
time limits defined in the Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act (FDAAA) of 2007.
• In addition, for the same reasons, all trial results should be posted
at Clinicaltrials.gov within 6 months of the last research participant com -
pleting the trial, the trial being terminated, or there being no further activ-
ity in the trial.
• Companies may attest annually to their posting of results and rials.
The FDAAA penalties for nonposting should apply to tobacco studies.
4. Engaging Academic Researchers. Where a third-party entity carries
out some or all of the research, such an entity should work with represen-
tatives of academic medical centers and scientific journals to develop a
transparent funding process for tobacco studies that will allow academic
medical centers to accept such funding and will satisfy the journal editors'
requirements regarding independence from tobacco funding.
5. Communicating Risks and Benefits. Marketing materials for
MRTPs should only be allowed to use the conclusions from studies
reached by the analysis of the independent entity described above.
6. Research Oversight. Where independent research entities are used,
any independent institute
• should have as its mission the performance of high-quality studies
to determine the risks of modified tobacco products;
• should be governed by individuals appointed by an organization
independent of the tobacco industry and with sufficient scientific stature
to inspire public confidence; and
• should receive "core funding" from a tax on tobacco products that
will maintain its basic functions, while individual studies will be funded
by the interested companies.
Ashley, M. J., and J. E. Cohen. 2003. What the public thinks about the tobacco industry and
its products. Tobacco Control 12(4):396-400.
OCR for page 45
Barnes, D. E., and L. A. Bero. 1996. Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: An
analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the center for indoor
air research. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law 21(3):515-542.
Barnes, D. E., and L. A. Bero. 1998. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smok -
ing reach different conclusions. JAMA 279(19):1566-1570.
Barnes, R. L., S. K. Hammond, and S. A. Glantz. 2006. The tobacco industry's role in the 16
cities study of secondhand tobacco smoke: Do the data support the stated conclusions?
Environmental Health Perspectives 114(12):1890-1897.
Bero, L., D. E. Barnes, P. Hanauer, J. Slade, and S. A. Glantz. 1995. Lawyer control in tobacco
industry's external research program: The Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA
Bitton, A., M. D. Neuman, J. Barnoya, and S. A. Glantz. 2005. The p53 tumour suppres-
sor gene and the tobacco industry: Research, debate, and conflict of interest. Lancet
Carpenter, C. M., G. F. Wayne, and G. N. Connolly. 2007. The role of sensory perception in
the development and targeting of tobacco products. Addiction 102(1):136-147.
Carpenter, D. P. 2010. Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation
at the FDA. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cataldo, J. K., L. A. Bero, and R. E. Malone. 2010. "A delicate diplomatic situation": Tobacco
industry efforts to gain control of the Framingham study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiol-
ogy 63(8):841-853.
Cook, B. L., G. F. Wayne, L. Keithly, and G. Connolly. 2003. One size does not fit all: How the
tobacco industry has altered cigarette design to target consumer groups with specific
psychological and psychosocial needs. Addiction 98(11):1547-1561.
Cummings, K. M. 2003. A promise is a promise. Tobacco Control 12(2):117-118.
Cummings, K. M., C. Morley, and A. Hyland. 2002. Failed promises of the cigarette industry
and its effect on consumer misperceptions about the health risks of smoking. Tobacco
Control 11(Suppl. 1):i110-i117.
Cummings, K. M., A. Brown, and R. O'Connor. 2007. The cigarette controversy. Cancer Epi-
demiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 16(6):1070-1076.
DeNoble, V. J., and P. C. Mele. 2006. Intravenous nicotine self-administration in rats: Effects
of mecamylamine, hexamethonium and naloxone. Psychopharmacology 184(3-4):266-272.
Doll, R., and A. B. Hill. 1950. Smoking and carcinoma of the lung; preliminary report. British
Medical Journal 2(4682):739-748.
Doll, R., and A. B. Hill. 1952. A study of the aetiology of carcinoma of the lung. British Medi-
cal Journal 2(4797):1271-1286.
Doll, R., and A. B. Hill. 1954. The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits.
British Medical Journal 1(4877):1451-1455.
Dunn, W. L. 1973. Smoking behavior: Motives and incentives. Washington: V. H. Winston; dis-
tributed by the Halsted Press Division, Wiley.
Etter, J. F., C. Bullen, A. D. Flouris, M. Laugesen, and T. Eissenberg. 2011. Electronic nicotine
delivery systems: A research agenda. Tobacco Control 20(3):243-248.
Eysenck, H. J. 1991. Smoking, personality, and stress: Psychosocial factors in the prevention of
cancer and coronary heart disease. New York: Springer.
FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2010. Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. In
Chapter 1—Food and Drug Administration, Part 50—Protection of Human Subjects.
Fields, N., and S. Chapman. 2003. Chasing Ernst L Wynder: 40 years of Philip Morris'
efforts to influence a leading scientist. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Foulds, J., L. Ramstrom, M. Burke, and K. Fagerstrom. 2003. Effect of smokeless tobacco
(snus) on smoking and public health in Sweden. Tobacco Control 12(4):349-359.
OCR for page 45
Garne, D., M. Watson, S. Chapman, and F. Byrne. 2005. Environmental tobacco smoke
research published in the journal Indoor and Built Environment and associations with
the tobacco industry. Lancet 365(9461):804-809.
Glasser, S. P., M. Salas, and E. Delzell. 2007. Importance and challenges of studying marketed
drugs: What is a phase IV study? Common clinical research designs, registries, and
self-reporting systems. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 47(9):1074.
Gundle, K. R., M. J. Dingel, and B. A. Koenig. 2010. "To prove this is the industry's best
hope": Big tobacco's support of research on the genetics of nicotine addiction. Addic-
tion 105(6):974-983.
Hammond, D., N. E. Collishaw, and C. Callard. 2006. Secret science: Tobacco industry re -
search on smoking behaviour and cigarette toxicity. Lancet 367(9512):781-787.
Hanauer, P., J. Slade, D. E. Barnes, L. Bero, and S. A. Glantz. 1995. Lawyer control of inter-
nal scientific-research to protect against products-liability lawsuits—the Brown-and-
Williamson documents. JAMA 274(3):234-240.
Harris, B. 2011. The intractable cigarette "filter problem." Tobacco Control 20(Suppl. 1):i10-i16.
Harris, J. E., M. J. Thun, A. M. Mondul, and E. E. Calle. 2004. Cigarette tar yields in relation
to mortality from lung cancer in the cancer prevention study II prospective cohort,
Harris Interactive. 2003. Attitudes to government regulation vary greatly for different indus -
tries; The Harris Poll #19. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-
Industries-2003-04.pdf (accessed December 5, 2011).
Harris Interactive. 2010. Oil, pharmaceutical, health insurance, and tobacco top the list of industries
that people think should be more regulated; The Harris Poll #149. http://www.harrisinteractive.
com/vault/HI-Harris-Poll-Industry-Regulation-2010-12-02.pdf (accessed December 5,
Henningfield, J. E., and K. O. Fagerstrom. 2001. Swedish match company, Swedish snus and
public health: A harm reduction experiment in progress? Tobacco Control 10(3):253-257.
HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1996. Postmarketing studies of pre-
scription drugs. Philadelphia, PA: Office of Inspector General.
HHS. 2009. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45, public welfare. Part 46, protection of human
subjects. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html (accessed
September 30, 2011).
Hirshbein, L. 2011. Scientific research and corporate influence: Smoking, mental illness,
and the tobacco industry. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences published
online May 19, 2011:1-24.
Hoffmann, D., and I. Hoffmann. 1997. The changing cigarette, 1950-1995. Journal of Toxicology
and Environmental Health 50(4):307-364.
Hurt, R. D., and C. R. Robertson. 1998. Prying open the door to the tobacco industry's secrets
about nicotine: The Minnesota Tobacco Trial. JAMA 280(13):1173-1181.
International Smoking Behaviour Conference and R. E. Thornton. 1978. Smoking behavior:
Physiological and psychological influences. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2001. Clearing the smoke: Assessing the science base for tobacco harm
reduction. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policy makers. Cambridge, Massachu -
setts: Harvard University Press.
Keating, T. J. 2001. Lessons from the recent history of the Health Effects Institute. Science,
Technology, & Human Values 26(4):409-430.
Kozlowski, L. T. 2007. Effect of smokeless tobacco product marketing and use on population
harm from tobacco use: Policy perspective for tobacco-risk reduction. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine 33(6):S379-S386.
OCR for page 45
Kozlowski, L. T., and R. J. O'Connor. 2002. Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design
because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents. Tobacco Control 11(Suppl.
Kozlowski, L. T., and R. J. O'Connor. 2010. Dealing with health fears: Cigarette advertising
in the United States in the twentieth century. In Tobacco: Science, policy, and public health.
2nd ed, edited by P. Boyle, N. Gray, J. Henningfield, J. Seffrin, and W. Zatonski. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Pp. 31-45.
Kozlowski, L. T., N. A. Dreschel, S. D. Stellman, J. Wilkenfeld, E. B. Weiss, and M. E.
Goldberg. 2005. An extremely compensatible cigarette by design: Documentary evi -
dence on industry awareness and reactions to the barclay filter design cheating the tar
testing system. Tobacco Control 14(1):64-70.
Landman, A., D. K. Cortese, and S. Glantz. 2008. Tobacco industry sociological programs to
influence public beliefs about smoking. Social Science and Medicine 66(4):970-981.
Marks, H. M. 1997. The progress of experiment: Science and therapeutic reform in the United States,
1900-1990. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Megerdichian, C. L., V. W. Rees, G. F. Wayne, and G. N. Connolly. 2007. Internal tobacco
industry research on olfactory and trigeminal nerve response to nicotine and other
smoke components. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 9(11):1119-1129.
Muggli, M. E., R. D. Hurt, and D. D. Blanke. 2003. Science for hire: A tobacco industry
strategy to influence public opinion on secondhand smoke. Nicotine & Tobacco Research
NCI (National Cancer Institute). 1997. The FTC cigarette test method for detemining tar, nicotine,
and carbon monoxide yields of U.S. cigarettes, Smoking and tobacco control monograph no. 7.
Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of
Health. NIH Pub. No. 96-4028.
NCI. 2001. Risks associated with smoking cigarettes with low machine-measured yields of tar and
nicotine, Smoking and tobacco control monograph no. 13. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.
NIH Pub. No. 99-4645.
NCI. 2008. The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use. Edited by R. M. Davis,
NCI tobacco control monograph series. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human
Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.
Neilsen, K., and S. A. Glantz. 2004. A tobacco industry study of airline cabin air quality:
Dropping inconvenient findings. Tobacco Control 13(Suppl. 1):i20-i29.
NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse). 2011. Points to consider regarding tobacco industry
funding of NIDA applications. http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/organization/nacda/
points-to-consider.html (accessed September 30, 2011).
Ong, E. K., and S. A. Glantz. 2000. Tobacco industry efforts subverting international agency
for research on cancer's second-hand smoke study. Lancet 355(9211):1253-1259.
Parascandola, M. 2005a. Lessons from the history of tobacco harm reduction: The National
Cancer Institute's smoking and health program and the "less hazardous cigarette."
Nicotine & Tobacco Research 7(5):779-789.
Parascandola, M. 2005b. Science, industry, and tobacco harm reduction: A case study of
tobacco industry scientists' involvement in the National Cancer Institute's smoking
and health program, 1964-1980. Public Health Reports 120(3):338-349.
Pauly, J. L., A. B. Mepani, J. D. Lesses, K. M. Cummings, and R. J. Streck. 2002. Cigarettes
with defective filters marketed for 40 years: What Philip Morris never told smokers.
Tobacco Control 11(Suppl. 1):i51-i61.
Petticrew, M. P., and K. Lee. 2011. The "father of stress" meets "big tobacco": Hans Selye and
the tobacco industry. American Journal of Public Health 101(3):411-418.
Pollay, R. W., and T. Dewhirst. 2002. The dark side of marketing seemingly "light" cigarettes:
Successful images and failed fact. Tobacco Control 11(Suppl. 1):i18-i31.
OCR for page 45
Rees, V. W., J. M. Kreslake, R. J. O'Connor, K. M. Cummings, M. Parascandola, D. Hatsukami,
P. G. Shields, and G. N. Connolly. 2009. Methods used in internal industry clinical
trials to assess tobacco risk reduction. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Schick, S., and S. Glantz. 2005. Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream
smoke: More toxic than mainstream smoke. Tobacco Control 14(6):396-404.
Schick, S. F., and S. Glantz. 2007a. Concentrations of the carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-
1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone in sidestream cigarette smoke increase after release into
indoor air: Results from unpublished tobacco industry research. Cancer Epidemiology,
Biomarkers & Prevention 16(8):1547-1553.
Schick, S. F., and S. A. Glantz. 2007b. Old ways, new means: Tobacco industry funding of
academic and private sector scientists since the Master Settlement Agreement. Tobacco
Control 16(3):157-164.
Scollo, M., A. Lal, A. Hyland, and S. Glantz. 2003. Review of the quality of studies on the
economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tobacco Control
Smith, E. A. 2006. "It's interesting how few people die from smoking": Tobacco industry
efforts to minimize risk and discredit health promotion. The European Journal of Public
Health 17(2):162.
Sutton, C. D., and R. G. Robinson. 2004. The marketing of menthol cigarettes in the United
States: Populations, messages, and channels. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 6(Suppl. 1):S83-
Thun, M. J., and D. M. Burns. 2001. Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: A critical
assessment of the epidemiological evidence. Tobacco Control 10(Suppl. 1):i4-i11.
Tomar, S. L., B. J. Fox, and H. H. Severson. 2009. Is smokeless tobacco use an appropriate
public health strategy for reducing societal harm from cigarette smoking? International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 6(1):10-24.
Tong, E. K., L. England, and S. A. Glantz. 2005. Changing conclusions on secondhand smoke
in a sudden infant death syndrome review funded by the tobacco industry. Pediatrics
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2009. New drug approval: FDA needs to enhance its
oversight of drugs approved on the basis of surrogate endpoints. (Publication No. GAO-09-
866). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Wayne, G. F., G. N. Connolly, and J. E. Henningfield. 2004. Assessing internal tobacco indus -
try knowledge of the neurobiology of tobacco dependence. Nicotine & Tobacco Research
White, J., M. Parascandola, and L. Bero. 2007. Tobacco industry research and protection of
human subjects: A case study of R. J. Reynolds. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 9(11):1213-
Wood, A. J. J., C. M. Stein, and R. Woosley. 1998. Making medicines safer—the need for an
independent drug safety board. NEJM 339(25):1851-1854.
Wynder, E. L., and E. A. Graham. 1950. Tobacco smoking as a possible etiologic factor in
bronchiogenic carcinoma—a study of 684 proved cases. JAMA 143(4):329-336.
Wynder, E. L., and S. D. Stellman. 1979. Impact of long-term filter cigarette usage on lung
and larynx cancer risk: A case-control study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Wynder, E. L., E. A. Graham, and A. B. Croninger. 1953. Experimental production of carci -
noma with cigarette tar. Cancer Research 13(12):855-864.
Yano, E. 2005. Japanese spousal smoking study revisited: How a tobacco industry funded
paper reached erroneous conclusions. Tobacco Control 14(4):227-233.
OCR for page 45


text:
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
Divinity II: DKS - X360 Publishing Deal for NA
January 25th, 2011, 06:17
Larian has announced a publishing deal with Atlus to bring The Dragon Knight Saga X360 version to NA in April:
Atlus is proud to announce their partnership with Focus Home Interactive and Larian Studios in bringing Divinity II - The Dragon Knight Saga for Xbox 360 to North America!More information.
Divinity II - The Dragon Knight Saga includes a fully remastered version of the original adventure, Ego Draconis, plus Flames of Vengeance, which brings the Divinity II story to a thrilling conclusion, offering numerous new quests to complete, new monsters to fight, and new weapons and armor to collect!
Release Date: Look for it in stores April 12, 2011!
-= RPGWatch =-
-= RPGWatch =-
January 25th, 2011, 06:17
All I can say is . Seems like Larian cant find publishers in NA for there games they almost always come out 6 months or a year later then the european release. Good thing I bought in on the pc.
January 25th, 2011, 12:14
Atlus is well known over here. They've been publishing games since the original Nintendo system.
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:55.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Monday, April 18, 2005 | ||||||||
Dumping sand | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Village employee Tom Beahrs spreads sand around the new restroom facility at Shane's Park in Rockford. Village workers are preparing to pour a concrete pad around the new facility, which was built by the village park board for about $45,000. The restroom is open for public use, but is not quite finished. Purchase this as a quality photograph |


text:
Did you know Ireland is the gateway to Europe, the Middle East and Africa for many major multinationals?
Read the sections below to find out more about why so many successful businesses are choosing to locate in Ireland.
1,200 multinationals including ICBC, Huawei, Google, Apple, Facebook, Citigroup, Pfizer, and Microsoft all use Ireland to serve European and global markets.
Over 30,000 people are directly employed in financial services in Ireland's capital, Dublin, making it one of Europe's major financial centres.
In the funds space, for example, €900 billion is domiciled in Ireland, while in aircraft leasing, 50% of the world's commercial aircraft fleet (over €83 billion in assets) is managed from Dublin.
Ireland already hosts 9 of the world's top 10 IT companies, including the likes of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple, plus an emerging generation of gaming software developers.
Ireland is the recognised global destination to domicile and / or base your IT functions – an ideal fit with Ireland's competitive tax environment, neutral political stance, and educated workforce.
Tax deductable IPR spend; the highest rates of university education in the EU and a 25 per cent R&D tax credit all attract investment.
Eight of the world's top 10 pharma companies and 15 of the world's top 20 medical device companies are already in Ireland.
Ireland's agricultural output can feed a population more than 10 times its own size.
Ireland's premium quality exports (including dairy produce, infant formula, beef, pork, poultry, seafood, whiskey, cream liqueur and beer) mean Ireland is a major net exporter of food produce globally.
Recognised for its high standards of management and technology, Ireland has strong credentials in organic food, food safety, and supply chain traceability.
Ireland has huge wind and marine power potential, and is interconnected with the UK grid at competitive feed-in tariffs.
Ireland is emerging as a centre for marine and smart grid technologies, with academic, industrial research and manufacturing credentials.
Learn more about the Eurozone's only English-speaking nation
Source: Forbes, 2012
A globally convenient time zone overlaps the Asian and American working day*
*Based on European Summer Time, April – October
Direct flights bring you to major markets
Learn more about this business-friendly, politically neutral nation
"Ireland is renowned globally as a business friendly country with a competitive corporate tax rate of 12.5% and a well educated workforce. Ireland is also the only English speaking country in the Eurozone. For these reasons, a large number of Global Companies have setup their international / European headquarters in Ireland.
Similar to Asian cultures, Irish culture is friendly and welcoming. Asian professionals and students are well received and respected within Irish society. Dublin, the capital of Ireland, has a sizeable Asian community with a large number of Asian shops and traditional Asian restaurants - making you feel like it's a home from home."
Chen Tian MBS Finance, QFA Assistant Director Bank of Ireland Corporate Banking
"We have been very happy with the development of our business in Ireland to date and with the quality of support and assistance we have obtained from our advisers and the IDA in developing our business over the last few years."
Alex HOU Deputy General Manager ICBC International Leasing Co., Ltd.
KPMG can help you throughout your global expansion. Our services include:
For more information, contact:
Barrie O'Connell Partner Ireland-China Desk T:+ 353 87 744 2039 E: firstname.lastname@example.com
Mei Dong Partner Outbound Strategy T:+86 10 8508 5809 E: firstname.lastname@example.com
Brian Daly Partner FDI Tax T: +353 87 744 1278 E: email@example.com
Christopher Brown Associate Director, Dublin & Beijing Market Entry Strategy & Ireland-China Desk T: +353 87 050 4389 E: email@example.com
Barrie O'Connell
Download business card
+353 1 410 4577
View profile
Christopher BrownAssociate Director
+353 1 700 4389
We can assist with the issues your business is facing and provide the services you require.


text:
Find commute times to your work, school, gym and more.
3 Bedroom Townhome
- This property is no longer listed on Rent.com. For this reason please note that any pricing or description information may not be up-to-date.
Search Available Townhomes
Popular searches in Glendale, AZ
Extra Storage, Swimming Pool
ADT Security System in Home, Sunlight in Bathroom, Sunlight in Master Bedroom, Tile Flooring, Wood Floors
Property Details
3bdrm/2ba Townhome with small private yard, patio, utility room, and storage shed.
3bdrm/2ba townhome includes washer, dryer, refrigerator, stove, microwave, utility room with private air conditioner, storage shed, community pool, 2 car carport, covered patio and small private yard. ADT security included. Water, sewage, and trash paid for by landlord. Townhome has wood floors in master bdrm and living room; 2 bdrms have carpet, and kitchen has rock slate tile. Home is located less than 1 mile from two elementary schools, restaurants, parks and old town Glendale Arizona.
Leasing Terms
1 year lease, details will be set upon signing.
Pet Policy
Pets Accepted. Call for service animal policy.
Community Information
1 units
Building Type
Similar Properties
Neighborhood Info
location | time | miles |


text:
The damaged aircraft has been making a slow, weeklong journey by truck to Charlotte from Newark, N.J., where it spent the last two years in a hangar.
The plane is expected to arrive tomorrow at the Carolinas Aviation Museum in Charlotte for display. A Saturday reception will honor passengers and crew.
Charlotte was the destination of US Airways Flight 1549 until a flock of geese disabled the engines on Jan. 15, 2009. Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III glided it to a safe landing on the Hudson in New York City. All 155 passengers and crew members were rescued.


text:
It seems that we are more than ready to start thinking of the next episode in the Shines Compilations saga There are a few minor points we need to decide on before we start working - who's in and what are we doing? Who's in? I have compiled a list of people who (knowingly or unknowingly ) have expressed interest in the past. Some have already checked in, hopefully the rest will follow. If I have forgotten anybody, please slap me and the mistake will be corrected. Anybody is welcome. If you are tempted, please, please, please, join us - it is great fun! The List: (edit: it is now the final list) antigone - either Big10 - EB Blair - EB Brownskin818 - EB CaribSalsera - RB chrisk - EB GuyDC - RB emarrific - EB Jag75 Jolinia Lola lolita - EB MacMoto - either mangomotion - RB PielCanela redsalsero - RB ptwist SalsaGipsy smiling28 sweavo - either What are we going to do? Let's throw in some ideas, brainstorm a bit and see what happens. Here are a few possibilities that have been suggested in the past: ---> One song, everybody gets a part, records a contribution and everything gets spliced together - that was the format of the first two compilations ---> Adding a competitive element, two compilations with two groups of people - that's what we did last time with the Guys v Galls compilations. We can use any division we want - geographical, on1 v on2, whatever ---> Partner work - find a partner (from SF or not) and record your part of the song together - either as partner work or as shines (a few people did that on the second compilation). With the New Jersey Congress and MamboCity in London there will be more opportunities for people to meet and work together ---> Instead of salsa, we can do a chacha this time - chacha shines can be very cool as well and something we get to do much less often than salsa shines ---> The Craziest Location - we can record our contributions in a weird location and/or wearing something crazy Any other ideas?
I like this option too Let's see what everybody else thinks and if it proves popular we'll have to ok it with the song-picker (the lovely CaribSalsera)
I'd love to join in! I have to admit I do have a weakness for cha cha shines (as in I like them lol). I probably won't be able to meet many of you until I go to the NY Congress but I'll see what I can come up with from down under I've been learning on2 shines for quite a while now so would prob be more comfortable contributing those types of shines. Oh and maybe I'll throw in some pachanga shines for good measure - be warned I can look a bit retarted doing pachanga...
I remember discussions or working with just one part of the body, or playing "telephone" with a shines sequence. We could try to incorporate as many different styles of one type of shine as possible. (i.e. I can think of 4 different ways to do a suzy q at least). Sorry, I'm just not a big fan of cha-cha shines. If that's what's called for though, then that is that.
Fantastic, Jag75! We love retarded! In fact if you can achieve the "under developed dinosaur dwarf flapping its arms" technique (here) you'll fit in nicely.
I love cha cha so if that's what we decide, I don't mind at all. I'm going to head to the "Cha Cha" playlist on my iPod now and see what I've got.
A track that you could fit in "under-developed dinosaur dwarf flapping its arms" quite nicely? (on the drum roll of) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_UCeQ1cIa4 La Cuna's Pastime Paradise (though the video is likely to have a remixed version?). I like the concept of telephone with shines. By all means this idea only sounds interesting in my head: Say a shine took a bar. Each group gets 2 bars. A does a shine, then a new shine (eg mambo then suzi q) B can then do their take of the 2nd move A did (a suzi q), then a new shine Say A group was on the left of a split screen, and B's on the right - A's could look to their left at the end of their two shines, B's could look their right, when they've done 2 shines. Kind of pass the moves back and forth. You could also do different parts of the body - so A's start with feet moves, B's reply with knees and hips, A's counter with chest isolations, B's come back with arms and shoulders, A's reply with head / full body moves, B's reply with full body moves. As an aside - it would be cool to see how people just stylise, individualise a few given moves - e.g. suzi q, what have you. Can anyone point me to how to understand, see what cha cha shines are about?
It's not a big mystery - just shines to cha cha music. Here's a quick example: youtube.com/watch?v=pPEm2jhfv78&feature=related Enjoy!
Aren't you in yet? <- Just trying to get your lazy a.. up. Anyway, I'll side with Lola since I'm neither have a fan of cha-cha shines nor did I ever really learn some. But if everybody is settling for it, I'll have to figure something out. And tom, I think the two concepts of telephone shines was slightly different if I remember the last talk about it in one of the previous threads. A would start with one bar of music, then B will reproduce that shine and will add another bar. Then C will have reproduce the shines from A and B as well as adding his own. Or we'll a have person A come up with a shine sequence of several bars and then person B has to reproduce it, record it and send it on to person C, doing then the same. But in both cases, I think this will take a lot of time and a lot of coordination, so not sure if it's a good idea. Oh and reading Lola's posts I just got another idea: What about having everybody do a shine sequence where they have to include a certain number (ie. 3) of shines, that we defined here before, into his sequence?
Cheers The related videos to the above video show chacha shines a little slower, to help train, which is useful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayPB8cRH_rA&feature=related As a general note, it really shows how black trousers oftentimes not show off well your great leg/footwork! Eddie just has this block of black, where his trousers should be hehe. You can't easily sometimes work out the relative position of both legs - which is not an issue with his female assistant. Antigone's black trousers in SF Shines I shows this a little, but she has a good contrasting background, and they are well fitting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbskfrdhBpQ#t=1m12s Really helps with working out what the position of the legs and hips are in 3d space. A bit of fading on jeans seems to work well. SalsaGipsy - what do you think? e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLaC5vgQhAw#t=2m12s Ideally, you could all be wearing tiger slippers too Sounds good chrisk One sounds a bit like a shines version of consequences, the other sounds a little like shine chinese whispers? Could be interesting to do another time even if it would take too much coordination/time to do this time round. I like the concept of getting every dance to do some shines that are the same anyhow - could then have lots of you on at once doing the same shines/shine sequence. I'm sure once the tune's chosen there will be more ideas!
A vote for this. One, it'll make the process more involved and two, it'll make for some interesting locations. Chris: :nope:
For the partnerwork lets do a "who can burst out the craziest move" haha I'm stealing that ninja flip from Tropical
What are you insinuating about my trousers?? They are not black, they are grey actually. Great idea! But we'd rather postpone it until you are ready to join. It's not possible to get everybody together geographically. We are currently 12 and more are probably joining. If you just make frames with each of us we'll be too small to see properly. Or did you mean something different?


text:
Sympathy Flowers
Flowers by price
Flowers by occasion
Sympathy Flowers - Sensitively Delivered Condolence Emotions;
Flowers have a dignity and sensitivity that convey emotions and sentiments that can be impossible to express in words. It can sometimes be difficult to convey your condolences, which is why a simple flower boquet can help provide comfort and show that you care.
Traditionally, white flowers have always been used to express sympathy, several of our predominantly white flower arrangements are shown below; all of which can be sent with next-day delivery to any UK address.
If you would prefer to send a mix of flowers with a little more colour, then our bouquets containing colourful flowers flowers may be of help.
Do you need to send sympathy flowers today? Then you might like to look at our range of Same day flowers, which include Lilies and a selection of white and coloured arrangements which are available for same day delivery.
We can also include a handwritten note card with your flowers so that you can leave a message to show you condolences.


text:
Well there is a pro and con for every solution. True, neck straps work well and have been working well for many photographers but this does not mean that it is the best solution for everyone. My cousins has one for his DSLR and he likes it alot. More importantly, he carries his camera more often because it is always there and doesn't really get in his way. I can't really try his because he is at a different state and when I last visited he had applied an adhesive as a security measure so I didn't really want to mess with his settup.
I would try it out but it is expensive and more risky because of the base plate so I just wanted to hear some advice/eperience. There doesn't seem to be many people using this thing except for those who carry heavy gear and use multiple cameras during a specific shoot.
I'm not trying to be the fastest shooter per se but I just don't want the camera to get in the way and I want it to be ready.
Let me explain further.
I haven't decided which I like better neck straps or wrist straps (I use wrist straps only for security). Ideally I would carry my camera on me at all times and have it not get in the way or have to rely on a camera bag.
neck straps: i generally do not like things dangling from my neck so I use it across the shoulder. So far this works best but it does swing a bit and I can't help but feel like a "photographer".
wrist straps: i like these too but I find it a hassle to flip in my camera bag to grab my camera when I find something interesting that I want to shoot and/or when I have to put my camera away to tie my shoe or something.
Well my main fear now is that the M baseplate just isn't that strong since it was clearly not designed as a tripod-camera. I read about some accidents with the tripod socket for tripod use, so I just do not trust it. I would perhaps consider one for a lesser expensive camera, I don't want to lose a $1k+ settup in an instant.


text:
Hatherly, P.A.; Jordan, S.E. and Cayless, A.
PDF (Not Set)
- Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (2399Kb) |
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/30/4/008 |
Google Scholar: | Look up in Google Scholar |
The desirability and value of laboratory work for physics students is a well-established principle and issues arise where students are inherently remote from their host institution, as is the case for the UK's Open University. In this paper, we present developments from the Physics Innovations Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (piCETL) in the production and technology of the virtual laboratory resources, interactive screen experiments, and the benefits and drawbacks of such resources. We also explore the motivations behind current implementation of interactive screen experiments and examine evaluation strategies and outcomes through a series of case studies
Item Type: | Journal Article |
Copyright Holders: | 2009 Institute of Physics and IOP Publishing Limited |
Academic Unit/Department: | Science > Physical Sciences |
Interdisciplinary Research Centre: | eSTEeM |
Item ID: | 17886 |
Depositing User: | Paul Hatherly |
Date Deposited: | 10 Aug 2009 09:58 |
Last Modified: | 22 Dec 2014 14:29 |
URI: | http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/17886 |
Share this page: |
Altmetrics | Scopus Citations |


text:
Posted under: American history, jobs, students
Distractions, distractions, distractions! How am I ever going to finish this damn book without moving to a remote Scottish village, a mountaintop cabin in New Mexico, or a Colorado ghost town without the internets? Ironically enough, the internets have a lot to say these days about how the internets are scrambling our brains and changing our understanding of our own humanity.
- First, we see via a link from Karin Wulf (@kawulf) Maria Konnikova's "How to Be a Better Online Reader," which argues that readers haven't learned to cope with the distractions of reading online. According to Maryanne Wolf, "'Physical, tangible books give children a lot of time,' she says. 'And the digital milieu speeds everything up. So we need to do things much more slowly and gradually than we are.' Not only should digital reading be introduced more slowly into the curriculum; it also should be integrated with the more immersive reading skills that deeper comprehension requires." In other words, reading comprehension is shaped by factors other than the words on a page or a screen–the materiality of the text is fundamentally important. But instead of chucking out our screens, we have to learn to adapt and teach online reading skills to our students.
- Next, over at Religion in American History, Laura Arnold Leibman writes about her digital humanities course, American Dead and Undead, and discovered through her work with her students that the internet is changing the ways in which Americans perceive and experience death: "Since I am primarily a scholar of early America, we deepened my own sense of what is happening right now, and for me this was the most interesting aspect of the course. Most scholars of twentieth-century American death hadn't historicized the advent of the digital age, and we discovered this was their loss. The internet, my students argued, changed everything, including how we mourn and our sense of eternity."
- Finally, @GayProf reminds us that a Comcast account has joined Death and Taxes as inescapable. Pro Tip: If you want to disconnect from Comcast, tell the "customer service" rep that you're moving out of the country. It's the only way to avoid a lengthy argument and get on with your day.
- Small offline accomplishment: I finally uprooted and threw away all of the unwelcome yarrow in my garden! It has taken me all summer to do this, but I did it and now it's done. ProTip: Never plant yarrow. Ever. It is the internet spam of your garden. It becomes a voracious carpet four inches thick that will swallow everything good and decent that you have nurtured, including potentially pets and small children.
Now, I really, absolutely, indisputably must get back to chapter six and tend my relationship with some dead eighteenth-century women. Memo to myself: break up with adverbs. (I use too many adverbs in my first drafts, and maybe in my final drafts too. Do you?)
9 Responses to "Thursday round-up: because the internet edition"
GayProf on 17 Jul 2014 at 9:12 am #
Oooh — A mountaintop cabin in New Mexico sounds like a wise choice. There has to be somewhere that Comcast does not reign like a cruel tyrant, right?
I don't know what yarrow is, but I will dutifully not plant it as commanded.
Indyanna on 17 Jul 2014 at 9:24 am #
On the remote cabin part, read the NYT profile on Burt, of Burt's Bees, from somewhere in northern Maine. I'm not sure I'd get much writing done there either, although not having to cringe when a contractor truck arrives across the alley at 7 a.m. would be great.
On dead and undead, I'm discovering that Find-a-Grave is slithering into my research experience more frequently than I would have imagined. Although a lot of the "content" there seems to be swiped from other sources. Still, a scoop here, a scoop there…
I can see the Comcast Tower from my tower. Soon there will be a twin standing right next to it. Why would they let you unsub before they've topped that out?
Been missing reports from your garden, Historiann, the dolls, the cats, the soup-starter stuff… But best with that chap!
Anon on 17 Jul 2014 at 10:43 am #
Unless you removed all of the underground parts (basically impossible), you probably have not seen the last of the yarrow.
I got more writing done yesterday on a three hour flight that I did in the last three weeks.
Historiann on 17 Jul 2014 at 10:56 am #
Say it ain't so!!!!
I think I'm getting most of the underground bits, as my method is like removing turf. The part of the garden I ripped up in May or June is staying pretty yarrow-free, except for some roots that must have clung to the irises and daylillies. Regular weeding & patrol seems to be working.
quixote on 17 Jul 2014 at 12:14 pm #
Adverbs. ZOMG. Definitely, a very seriously massive issue with adverbs, I have. (I continue to work on it, though!)
quixote on 17 Jul 2014 at 12:16 pm #
Oh, and about yarrow: count your blessings. It blooms. That's a high class weed. Now, nut grass … then you're done for.
Susan on 18 Jul 2014 at 1:47 pm #
Worse than yarrow is mint. And pachysandra. The roots of pachysandra become a multiple inch thick mat. We had a house with masses of it, and it always depressed me, so we gradually dug it up. But that was *painful*.
Meanwhile, one of my goals for my sabbatical is to get rid of Comcast, at least for TV. (My colleagues tell me that AT&T is worse, so I'm not sure the choices are great.)
undine on 20 Jul 2014 at 10:26 pm #
One more vote for mountaintop cabin. On another note, how about a garden cage match? Mint, yarrow, and chives in one square garden plot. At the end of the summer, see which one wins.
Feminist Avatar on 21 Jul 2014 at 12:29 am #
I lived at the top of a mountain in a remote Scottish village, where during winter you regularly got snowed in and couldn't leave. It was very picturesque and got a pretty decent internet connection. Hence my book did not get finished whilst living there.


text:
Welcome, Sign In
Branson on 40 Years of Virgin Records
Description:From the Sex Pistols to the Spice Girls, Virgin Records has signed some of the biggest names in show business. Now it is celebrating 40 years with an exhibition of memorabilia in London. (2:09)
Source: BBC World News
Tags: bbc news , BBC Worldwide , biggest , Branson


text:
- Mar 1:
- Former Denver cop Hector Paez gets 8 years for assault, kidnapping
- Dec 20:
- Denver cop convicted of rape free on bond until sentencing
- Dec 14:
- Accused Denver cop says he sought narcotics intel from woman, not oral sex
- May 24:
- Woman: Fear led her to comply with Denver cop's sexual demands
- May 23:
- Woman: Fear led her to comply with Denver cop's sexual demands
- Nov 23:
- Denver judge to rule in December on rape charge against police officer
Prosecutors say a Denver patrol officer offered a deal to a woman he approached in a parking lot — sex or jail.
Hector Paez, 31, was arrested Monday after an lengthy internal-affairs investigation and was still in custody in the Douglas County Jail on Tuesday on $100,000 bail.
The 36-year-old woman was wanted on an arrest warrant from Jefferson County.
"He allegedly placed her in his patrol car and took her to a light-industrial area on the west side of town and coerced her into having sex with him," said Lynn Kimbrough, a spokeswoman for the Denver district attorney's office.
Three days after the alleged incident May 16, the woman filed a criminal complaint against Paez, and he was placed on paid leave during an internal-affairs investigation. His arrest means he will be put on unpaid leave.
No information about the woman was released because she is an alleged sex-assault victim.
Denver police and the district attorney's office jointly announced the arrest Tuesday.
A Denver police spokesman said the department would not elaborate further.
Paez is a four-year veteran of the department who worked in District 4 in southwest Denver and lives in Lakewood.
Paez faces felony charges of kidnapping, sexual assault and attempt to influence a public servant. The latter charge alleges he lied about having contact with the woman when he was interviewed by the internal-affairs investigators.
Public records show Paez lived at Camp Lejeune, N.C., a Marine base, from 1998 to 2005.
His only previous run-in with the court system was in 2008, when he was sued by a collection agency and had his wages garnished for nine months after a Jefferson County judge issued a default judgment to the debt collectors when Paez failed to show up to court, according to records.
The arrest is more bad publicity for Denver law enforcement, which has weathered a number of high-profile claims and legal settlements on excessive-force charges against officers in recent months.
The Denver city attorney's office reported last month that the city had paid out nearly $6.2 million since 2004 to settle lawsuits involving police officers. Almost all of them involved allegations of excessive force.
Kieran Nicholson: 303-954-1822 or email@example.com


text:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:27 AM, WR said:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:24 AM, arkaine said:
dude chill. that's exactly what the cunts want. can't you tell they aren't even serious anymore? they're obviously just trying to get in the spotlight again, they're shit at subtlety. want to fuck the westboro church over? don't talk about them
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:35 AM, jayjay said:
wish i new what you were on about dude,but it sounds like it sucks..
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:06 PM, ZackaryVS said:
Yeah but there comes a point when you're so sick of something you want it to just disappear, I really want them to disappear.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:45 PM, MindFreakOnALeashBlakelyRachelle said:
well i havn't really looked into it, but based on what you and my mother say about it, i toataly agree. exept for the violent part.


text:
Please choose a country or other area, Region, or U.S. State.
Home » Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs » Bureau of Public Affairs » Bureau of Public Affairs: Publications » Photo Gallery » Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Photos » 2012 Secretary Clinton's Photos » Secretary of State Clinton Photos: November » Photos: Secretary Clinton Travels to the Middle East
Secretary Clinton is traveling to Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Cairo, where she will meet with regional leaders, starting with our Israeli partners, to consult on the situation in Gaza.
Do you already have an account on one of these sites? Click the logo to sign in and create your own customized State Department page. Want to learn more? Check out our FAQ!
OpenID is a service that allows you to sign in to many different websites using a single identity. Find out more about OpenID and how to get an OpenID-enabled account.


text:
April 21 2015 Latest news:
You can use this form to report the content shown below as inappropriate.
If you disagree with a story or a comment please post your own view directly on the piece itself rather than making a complaint.
Please provide full contact details with your complaint, so we can reply or contact you for more details.
I want to complain about this content:
16 weeks is effectively 8 weeks inside. That is not going to stop him driving again, is it ? Just glad I do not live in Ipswich now as he sure is a risk to the public. Glad his photo is shown, hopefully people will recognise him if he gets anywhere near a motor vehicle and report him - by Crimestoppers if needs be.
The original Victor Meldrew
Friday, June 08, 2012
Contact us by email, phone or in person. Get in touch


text:
Type: | Sport, 1 pitch |
Consensus: | YDS: 5.11a French: 6c Ewbanks: 22 UIAA: VII+ ZA: 22 British: E3 5c [details] |
FA: | Darren Mabe |
New Route: | Yes |
Page Views: | 1,484 |
Submitted By: | Anonymous Coward on Apr 2, 2002 |
Upper Canyon access closed - 8p Mar. 22 - 5p Mar. 28 MORE INFO >>> |
Comments on Contra | Add Comment |
Show which comments —
Comments displayed oldest to newest — Skip Ahead to the Most Recent Dated Nov 8, 2010 |
By piz May 29, 2002 |
Hey Darren, It's 5.10b good fun and a nice line. piz : ) |
By Anonymous Coward Jun 28, 2002 |
10b for tall people.... 2 moves harder for mid 5 footers. The rock quality is much better than it appears. |
By Anonymous Coward Oct 31, 2002 |
Chains are now on the anchors. |
By Darren Mabe From: Flagstaff, AZ Dec 12, 2002 |
It is possible to protect the direct start with a funky green Alien. This will at least keep you from tumbling down the ramp. Once on the ledge underneath the first bolt, you can get yellow TCU in the horizontal. Extend with runner to avoid crossload of biner. BTW there are quicklinks on the anchors, not chains. |
By Bryson Slothower May 14, 2003 |
10b seems like a sandbag to me, and I'm tall. Reaching the last hold before the anchors felt .11ish to me. |
By Casey Bernal From: Arvada, CO May 14, 2003 rating: 5.10+ 6b+ 21 VII+ 20 E3 5b |
Bryson - On the FA it sure felt like 11 hence the original rating. Piz found a hidden hold and new sequence to do the crux. Doing it with his beta it seemed much much easier, probably as hard as the previous semi-crux. Probably 10ish. |
By Drew Allan From: Denver/Aspen May 27, 2003 rating: 5.10d 6b+ 21 VII+ 21 E3 5b |
I have to agree with Bryson. On sight this route is 11ish or at least 10d++. I am also 6' and had trouble finding the right sequence just before the anchor. I certainly didn't find a hidden hold to make it 10b. Although it is short, the route is harder than most 10c/d's in CC (to qualify: CC 10c/d only!!). The route is definitely steeper and more edgy than I expected. Make sure to bring your edging shoes. Footholds down low on the right side are still flaking off somewhat. If you come from Lunchmoney, note the old pin above the anchor and pass it and head up and right to Contra. Be Careful with the lichen and loose rock. NOTE: There is a big Raven/Crow's nest to the right of the top of this route with three to four babies in there. Mom wasn't happy to have us there. I didn't see the nest until I got to the anchors. It might be advisable to stay off this route until mid summer when presumably the babies will have left. |
By Tony B From: Around Boulder, CO May 27, 2003 |
Looks like there is a math error, whereas if the original route poster does not specify a grade, then other people add 'consensus' grades, the rating average is divided by N+1, not N, and thus the grade is mathematically sandbagged. Myke & Ben, one to work on. |
By Matt Juth From: Evergreen Oct 6, 2003 rating: 5.11a 6c 22 VII+ 22 E3 5c |
I am biased being that I am restricted to a dyno for the hold at the top, but 10b? Sorry, Piz, we are just mere mortals.... |
By Leo Paik Administrator From: Westminster, Colorado Jun 3, 2004 rating: 5.11b 6c 23 VIII- 23 E3 5c |
Fun climb, but ledges divert one's attention from the moves on lead. Don't know of any local 10b like this. 2 lunges at 5'10" +2. With a 60m rope, you can rap to Lunchmoney's anchors if Monty has traffic. |
By Geoff U From: Highlands Ranch, CO Nov 8, 2010 rating: 5.11a 6c 22 VII+ 22 E3 5c |
I don't see how a dyno at the top is necessary. I felt it was fairly static by going with the left hand and rotating the left hip into the wall. Fun, thoughtful route. |


text:
Go to Our Mobile Site m.mybirdstore.com
Braided banana leaves surround a colorful vine ball, right in the center of this toy. At the top and bottom are bright wooden "ice cream" sticks and pieces of java wood. Along with all this chewing fun, sisal rope provides for some preening as well.This toy won Best Bird Product at the 2010/2011 world reknown SuperZoo trade show!
Approx. 7.5" long x approx. 4.5" wide