This site deals only with the corporate corruption of science, and makes no inference about the motives or activities of individuals involved.
There are many reasons why individuals become embroiled in corporate corruption activities - from political zealotry to over-enthusiastic activism; from gullibility to greed.
Please read the OVERVIEW carefully, and make up your own mind.
(aka B/F Institute, CBAPI, Madison Institute)
The Department of Justice case against the tobacco industry in mid 2004 lists Brotman/Freeman Institute. It points out that this was also known as the Center for Behavioral Analysis of Policy Issues (later renamed The Madison Institute for Policy Research and Development).
It was set up by industry consultants Brotman and Freeman at the expense of the tobacco industry under Special Account #5.
They say, "the purpose of this institute was to combat what Drs Freedman and Brotman perceived to be the growing repression by the government and other establishment forces of the public's "unacceptable" routine behavior through regulation of such behavior as anti-social, criminal or ill,"
From the view point of the tobacco industry, it was funded in order to redefine the description of the term "addictive" which constantly placed them under the threat of regulation by the FDA.
Some key documents
The Brotman/Freeman project evolved under three names:
with the name "Studies in the Control and Regualtion of Routine Behavior in a Democratic Society"
- The Brotman/Freedman Institute/Project
- Center for Behavioral Analysis of Policy Issues (42 documents in archives)
- The Madison Institute for Policy Research and Development. (1981 on)
Documents on this project were in Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Lorillard, Liggett & Myers and B&W files. Copies were also passed to Ed Jacob, at the lawfirm Jacob Medinger & Finnegan, which looked after the secret-payment Special Project #4 and #5 accounts.
• Richard Brotman, PhD., a professor in the Department of Psychiatry and the director of the Division of Community Health of the New York Medical College,
• Alfred Freedman, MD., the chairman of the Department of Psychiatry of the New York Medical College.
• Lawyers account for major research projects ie two-year $400,000 by Alfred M Freeman and Richard Brotman - to define risks and 'unhealthy behavior'.
1967 Feb: /E Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development, has contracted Brotman and Freedman to write a study "A community mental health approach to drug addiction."
[Note 147 pages]
Phase 1 Brotman/Freeman project for tobacco only
1978 Nov 8: Jacob & Medinger letter to Committee of Counsel
Enclosed is a proposal, budget and budget explanation from Drs. Alfred M. Freedman and Richard Brotman together with their curricula vitae and bibliographies.
They wanted an agreement before the end of the year, and Jacob and Shook Hardy & Bacon recommended it.
The budget is for the first year and we understand the proposal is for a two year period; thus, the total cost for the two years would be $400,000.
1982 Jul 15: Jacob & Medinger report on the Brotman/Freedman project to the Committee of Counsel.
The thrust of the proposal remains unchanged: to deal with a number of critical issues in psychiatric classification which have arisen as a result of DSM III and which must be addressed in connection with DSM IV.
[DSM= Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. These are the standard classifications of psychiatric conditions which were then being rewritten. The tobacco industry was vitally interested in the definition of "addiction" and B&F had previously (in 1967) labled tobacco/nicotine as an "addictive".]
However, important restructuring of the proposal has been accomplished and a revised budget is attached. The revised budget proposal covers a 14 month period (July 1982 through August 1983), and the work has been broken down into specific tasks to which time periods have been assigned and costs have been allocated. The restructuring will allow us to better monitor the project. The monograph mentioned in the February proposal has been dropped from the revised proposal, with the thought that it will be considered when the results of the international conference are in hand.
The total amount of the revised proposal is $237,000 and $87,500 remains undisbursed from the original Brotman/Freedman project which commenced in 1979, the revised proposal requires additional funding of $149,500.
1982 Oct 4: Tobacco industry laundry/lawyers Jacob Medinger & Finnegan have been writing to the lawyer Ernest Pepples, of Brown & Williamson (A key member of the Committee of Counsel which controlled any research the industry wanted to keep hidden).
The project circulated July 15 is for 14 months at $237,000, to be divided up between the companies on a market-share basis. Lorillard has decided not to participate.
Phase 2 The Center for Behavioral Analysis - for tobacco
1978 Sep: /E The Center for Behavioral Analysis of Policy Issues draft proposal.
We have formed a committee in order to establish a new organization in the public interest to be called The Center for Behavioral Analysis of Policy Issues.
The Purpose of the Center will be to concern itself with issues of public policy that relate to the roles of practitioners in our society. We would define the term "practitioner" very broadly to refer to any person or group that has authority to intervene in any situation that contains any questions or problems to be resolved.
- To conduct conferences on issues of practice, bringing together a due representation of the talents and interests that can contribute to a process of deliberation and the formation of initiatives.
- To commission and support studies on issues of practice. These may be carried out by members of the Center or by independent contractors,
- To publish reports on the conferences and studies of the Center for due dissemination of its work to interested publics.
The "ROUGH DRAFT" of proposed activities included a historical study of the way in which European governments/tyrants tried to regulate tea, coffee, alcohol (gin), and tobacco. Also the history of 'substance use' in the USA — with emphasis on the erosion of personal liberty. Prohibition, etc.
1978 Oct: An expanded report in the Philip Morris files shows that Behavioral Science consultants will be hired at $200 a day.
Dr Brotman and Freedman will have the total responsibility for conducting the Center's work for a minimum of ten hours a week (at a 'redacted' higher daily rate which turned out to be $100 per hour or $40,000 a year each). The business will be conducted in New York in "the offices of Drs Brotman and Freeman" who would constitute a partnership.
Extensive biographies (with Redacted sections) gives some idea of their background and qualifications -= mainly in mental health, substance abuse and drug addiction.
1978 Nov 8: After discussion with Bill Shinn of Shook Hardy & Bacon the lawyers of Jacob, Medinger & Finnegan recommend to the Committee of Counsel (in-house company lawyers) that they approved a two year, $400,000 project grant
See page 16
1979 Sept 10: Tim Finnegan, one of the tobacco industry's secret-accounts lawyers, has had a meeting with Brotman, Freedman and Arthur Stevens of Lorillard. Liggett had declined to participate in the project, but Lorillard was in. $100,000 had already been paid our for feasibility studies, and the proposed two-year budget was $400,000.
At the end of the two years, Stevens wanted the Center to be funded by other industries with addiction problems as well, to reduce the cost to the tobacco industry.
Phase 3 - Madison Center - Other companies with addiction problems
1981 Aug 17: It has now been renamed the Madison Institute for Policy Research and Development. (but doesn't yet have a printed letterhead!)
This appears to be a report justifying the Institute's existence to its tobacco industry funders — presumably because the industry wants to continue to maintain its artificial distinction between 'habituation' (of smoking and eating chocolate) as a category clearly separated from 'addiction' (which they maintain only applies to hard drugs).
The American Psychiatric Association has just approved a new, and highly controversial, classification system for mental illnesses (DSM=IV). Controversy still exists over whether the APA should:
- Expansion of substance use disorders in many areas, particularly the inclusion of tobacco dependence, as well as specific organic mental disorders.
- Tobacco withdrawal as a tobacco organic mental disorder and caffeine organic mental disorder as caffeine intoxication.
- Issues have also been raised in regard to cannabis abuse and cannabis dependence.
They plan to run some conferences:
"To aid in the development of these classifications, we propose a series of mini conferences with two or three experts in each area of controversy on the Delphi model to be followed by two international conferences on critical issues in psychiatric classification.
The first [International] conference would address itself to issues of neuroses and substance use disorders.
In regard to the substance use disorder :
- A review of the various terms that have been applied historically, particularly the terms addiction, habituation, and dependence;
- When is a habit a mental disorder;
- Significance of inclusion of tobacco dependence under substance-use disorders. Is this consistent with previous practice. Rationale of tobacco organic mental disorder, specifically tobacco withdrawal;
- Caffeine organic mental disorders, specifically caffeine intoxication, following ingestion of as little as two cups of coffee per day. Why not coffee dependence;
- Differentiation of abuse and use, particularly in regard to cannabis.
These 'conferences' would have carefully selected participants.
1981 Dec 10: Committee of Counsel meeting has them on the agenda
1982 Feb 2: Tim Finnegan is proposing to the various cigarette companies (via their in-house lawyers) that they continue funding the Brotman/Freedman project. He spells out to his fellow lawyers, the true intentions of the participants:
In broad outline, the purpose of the original project was to combat what Drs. Freedman and Brotman perceived to be the growing repression by the government and other establishment forces of the public's "unacceptable" routine behavior through regulation of such behavior as anti-social, criminal or ill.
The document also reveals that they had enlisted the Archdioscese of Brooklyn (and $25,000 in support) into an initial project on child foster-care and the Child Welfare Reform Act (presumably to establish credibility).
The long-term focus of the project was to be on abuse of the regulatory process and of medical power in defining risks and "unhealthy" habits. Tobacco was to be treated in this overall behavioral context, unrelated to smoking per se.
The vehicle for this effort by Drs. Freedman and Brotman was to be The Center for Behavioral Analysis of Policy Issues (later renamed The Madison Institute for Policy Research and Development).
The basic thrust of the Institute's initial work was to examine and analyze the "regulatory process," with a special focus on the phenomena of the single-issue pressure groups on the national scene that aim at controlling behavior.
They had a number of similar plans, including a "project aimed at demonstrating or investigating ways to control health costs." The document says:
It is difficult to determine fully why the Institute has failed to attract significant additional funding. Certainly, the outcome of the last presidential election and the resulting de-emphasis on government regulation must have been a significant factor.
[Clearly their attempt to get other 'addictive-product" companies to help with the funding has failed.]http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jzp99d00/pdf
1982 Jul 15: The Committee of Counsel had met with Brotman and Freedman to discuss the Madison Institute (Brotman/Freedman project). They are committed to continue funding, but the work to be done over the next 14 months now has clear-cut direction. It is now clearly focused on changing the DSM psychiatric classifications ...
"and the work has been broken down into specific tasks to which time periods have been assigned and costs have been allocated.
The restructuring will allow us to better monitor the project. The monograph mentioned in the February proposal has been dropped from the revised proposal, with the thought that it will be considered when the results of the international conference are in hand.
The total amount of the revised proposal is $237,000 and $87,500 remains undisbursed from the original Brotman/Fredman project which commenced in 1979, the revised proposal requires additional funding of $149,500.
1982 July: This courtroom list has two memos and a letter on Brotman'Freeman
• 2006022 on 1982 July 15
• 2006024 on 1982 Feb 2
• Letter (no Bates) 1982 Aug 3
1982 Oct 8: Chester Wrobleski from the law office of Jacob, Medinger & Finnegan writes to Ernest Pepples, the top inhouse lawyer at B&W. Lorillard has pulled out of the Brotman/Freedman project
The Brotman/Freedman Institute - See