William Hazeltine

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disambiguation needed here.

There are two William Hazeltine associated with the tobacco documents.

William Alan Hazeltine is a biophysicist and cancer specialist who took part in the early Rainbow Project which involved a large donation from Philip Morris. At the time of this CV he was with the Harvard School of Public Health. [ http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vsh46e00/pdf]

In 1990 he became part of the early Rainbow Project

There appears to be two phases to the Rainbow Projects -- with the earliest in 1989. See Philip Morris file with Bates: 2023027845/2023028078 These files were held in Bill Murray's office, which suggests very high-level political dealing. | It appears that it was to do with AIDS. And this seems to have involved the tobacco industry making strategic concessions to Congress in exchange for a period of peace. [1]

Dr William Hazeltine was listed in a 1994 report by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution as a member of the think tank's 'Academic Advisory Board'. [1]

He was also listed as a supporter of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. (He was identified as an "individual" supporter living in Oroville, California). [2] He also authored a paper, titled The DDT Case, for presentation at a "Seminar Sponsored by the [[International Center for Scientific Ecology]]" on May 10, 1993 in Paris. In the paper Hazeltine, who was listed as being from Oroville, wrote that he was "an Entomologist-Ecologist by training, who used DDT for crop protection, and for control of public health pests". [3]

Documents & Timeline

1994 Aug A Alexis de Tocqueville report "The EPA and the Science of ETS" has been funded by the Tobacco Institute. The author was Adjunct Scholar Kent Jeffreys, and the senior reviewer was S. Fred Singer, a Professor of Environmental Science (on leave from the University of Virginia) and a Senior Fellow at the Institute. The final report was scheduled to be complete mid-June and it would be entitled "Science and Environmentalism".

A confidential memo by the president of the Tobacco Institute, Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr., described how this secret tobacco-funded report was being used in legislative lobbying:

This morning Reps. Peter Geren (D-TX) and John Mica (R-FL) held a press conference announcing the release of a study by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution that evaluates the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) scientific principles used to justify policy decisions. Geren and Mica were joined by Cesar Conda, executive director of the de Tocqueville Institution and coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Kent Jeffreys." [2]

"Press coverage included States News Service, Stephens Publishing and Cable Congress. Several congressional staffers also attended, copies of the Geren/Mica "Dear Colleague" letter, press release and the study are enclosed."


This report is part of a larger coordinated effort to blindside the EPA. A "panel of experts" was assembled to "peer-review" the report. Naturally the majority were people with identified links to tobacco-funded institutes and think tanks, and some who share the same small set of funders.

Academic Advisory Board:

Senior Staff and Contributing Associates
Rachael Applegate,   Bruce Bartlett,   Merrick Carey,   Cesar Conda,   Gregory Fossedal,   Dave Juday,   Felix Rouse,   Aaron Stevens

Ten of the 19 names of the Academic Advisory Board are members of the Cash for Comments Economists Network. At this time S. Fred Singer was a Senior Fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, but they chose not to credit him with such close links.

These attempt to link the tobacco industry's problems to arguments about climate change were part funded by the Olin Foundation, Koch Family Foundations and Scaife Foundations.

  • 20 page Draft document sent to the Tobacco Institute [4]
  • The release about the final report (August 11 1994) It is now an attack on "environmental regulation" -- ETS, radon, pesticides and agricultural regulation, and the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program ... and based, supposedly, on the quality of the science used by the EPA. [5]
  • The final report was called Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination.' It had the approval of the Cash for Comments Economists Network. [6]


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