F. Alan Rodgman

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation.

F. Alan Rodgman was an R.J. Reynolds Fundamental Research Director, Senior Research Chemist 1954-1965, Head of the Smoke Research Section 1965-1975, Manager of Analytic Research 1975-1976, Director of Research 1976-1980, Director of the Chemical Division 1980-1983, Director of Fundamental R&D 1985-1987.

While working in the Chemical Research Division of RJR in 1962, Rodgman wrote a report called "The Smoking and Health Problem" in which he discusses the extent of research linking smoking with lung cancer. The paper also discusses The Constitutional Hypothesis of lung cancer, or the idea that some people are, by their constitution, predisposed to lung cancer. Rodgman reported to RJR on observations that had been made by that time, specifically that "cigarette smokers' lungs show profound cellular changes (squamous metaplasia, basal-cell hyperplasia, and other atypias) which are proportional to cigarette consumption."

Rodgman also argued that the industry should become more informed internally about its own products, in case the government tried to regulate them. He also ponted out that the industry was treading on thin ice (even way back then, in 1962), by bringing up the question: What position is the industry putting itself in when it pleads "not guilty" to the charge that its products cause harm, when at the same time it has covered up research that reveals harmful constituents in tobacco smoke in order to protect its economic status?

If a tobacco company plead "Not guilty" or "Not proven"to the charge that cigarette smoke (or one of its constituents) is an etiological factor in the causation of lung cancer or some other disease, can the company justifiably assume the position that publication of data pertaining to cigarette smoke composition or physiological properties should be withheld because such data might affect adversely the company's economic status when the company has already implied in its plea that no such etiologic effect exists?

References

<tdo>resource_id=3614 resource_code=rodgman_alan search_term=Alan Rodgman</tdo>