A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |     Dates

WARNING: 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.






[Temporary: while site is under construction]  

Wharton Conferences    

— An academic institute within the University of Philadelphia which sold-out en masse to the tobacco industry. Among many other activities, it also fronted manipulated conferences for them. —  

The Social Acceptability Working Party (SWAP) of the international tobacco industry, operating through the organisation known as ICOSI (later INFOTAB) was the initiator and funding channel for a loaded conference on the social costs of smoking (ie the burden of smoking on government and private health-care funds, loss of work-time, etc).

This was held in mid 1981 under the auspices of the Wharton School, which is part of the University of Pennsylvania. No mention was made of the fact that the conference was was controlled and funded by the tobacco industry, nor that its proceedings were selected, edited and published by the industry as propaganda.

This was not unusual for the Wharton School. It appears to have been well-funded by the tobacco industry for many decades after — and it ran other conferences, and generally acted as an institutional lackey for the industry.

Some key documents

1980: George Berman's report from Australia. He has recruited AMATIL and other companies to support Wharton Conference.

1980 Oct 31: Social Costs/Social Values Progress Report
    Conference. Constructive discussions have been held with Wharton concerning the program. We are still seeking sponsorship from major business organizations. The cutoff date for sponsorship will be December 15, after which we will proceed
    with a program structure dictated by the funds which have been committed. ????

1981 Jan 7: The international (ICOSI) tobacco industry's Social Costs/Social Values: Progress ReportWhat has now change is a new program of the World Health Organisation.

We have observed the WHO program to control smoking gaining strength rapidly. Not only has its budget increased sharpiy, but also its ability to influence other transnational agencies has developed apace.

    A brief study of the WHO program found that it is funded almost entirely by specially donated funds dedicated to anti-smoking objectives. Thus, the program is not in contention with other WHO programs for internal funds.

    The more effective the program is the more rapidly it will grow. And WHO has
    made clear that it plans to involve not only the FAO, but the ILO and the IMF as well.

    They also asked for decisions on:
  1. "Through what organisation/s will ICOSI sponsor the Wharton Conference?"
  2. Approval to support Tollison and Wagner in publishing their text
  3. Strategy for countering the WHO program on the Social Cost of Smoking [under the headings] Surveillance, Communications, Preparation, and Action
They saw their main threat as coming from WHO.
    [Also a background piece on the Social Costs arguments and the role of SAWP]

1981 May 18: Speakers at Wharton School of Applied Research conference on "social cost" all conclude with an exoneration of cigarette smoking. Littlechild, Feinhandler, etc. Clearly a tobacco fake conference on Risk

1981 June 29: Minutes of SAWP meeting in New York. They have been discussion the need for follow-up to the Wharton conference:

  • SAWP discusses what they should do with the printed proceedings. It was decided that "after publication by Wharton the papers should be sent to NMAs and member companies with suggestion of further distribution by them."
  • Reports that discussion at conference "had included views on social costs and transfer costs. After discussion, it was agreed that similar projects in the future called for close examination before implementation."