JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association
-
To learn how nicotine has been regarded by a major tobacco company. ⋯ During a period of 22 years (1962 to 1984), employees of B&W and BAT conducted research and commented on the pharmacology of nicotine. They consistently regarded nicotine as the pharmacological agent that explained tobacco use. In the early part of the period under study, officials of the companies wrote about nicotine addiction explicitly. Inhalation of cigarette smoke by the consumer was recognized throughout the period as necessary for the normal function of a cigarette. The documents contain little indication that research was conducted on either the taste or the flavor of nicotine. The documents reveal an intention on the part of B&W and its corporate parent to affect the function of the body with nicotine.
-
To examine the tobacco industry's public and private responses to rising concern over the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). ⋯ Privately, B&W and BAT began conducting research related to ETS in the mid 1970s. BAT researchers appear to have determined that sidestream smoke produces irritation, that it contains toxic substances including N-nitrosamines, and that it is "biologically active" (eg, carcinogenic) in laboratory tests. During the 1980s, the primary purpose of BAT's research related to ETS was to develop a new cigarette that emitted less irritating and less biologically active sidestream smoke. Publicly, the tobacco industry has denied that exposure to ETS has been proven dangerous to health. It has criticized the methodology of published research on ETS, even when some of its own consultants have privately acknowledged that the research was valid. In addition, the industry has funded scientific research with the stated purpose of anticipating and refuting the evidence against ETS. The tobacco industry's strategy regarding passive smoking has been remarkably similar to its strategy regarding active smoking. It has privately conducted internal research, at least some of which has supported the conclusion that passive smoking is dangerous to health, while it has publicly denied that the hazards have been proven.
-
To understand how attorneys for the tobacco industry in general, and Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W) in particular, have responded to the threat of products liability litigation arising from smoking-induced diseases. ⋯ The documents demonstrate that the tobacco industry in general, and B&W in particular, were very concerned about the threat of products liability lawsuits, and they illustrate some of the steps taken by lawyers at one company to avoid the discovery of documents that might be useful to a plaintiff in such a lawsuit. These steps included efforts to control the language of scientific discourse on issues related to smoking and health, to bring all potentially damaging internal scientific documents under attorney work product and attorney-client privilege to avoid discovery, to remove "deadwood" documents, and to insulate B&W from knowledge of potentially damaging scientific information from other BAT companies.
-
To examine the involvement of tobacco industry lawyers in the selection of tobacco industry scientific research projects and to examine how the research was used to influence public policy. ⋯ The involvement of tobacco industry lawyers in the selection of scientific projects to be funded is in sharp contrast to the industry's public statements about its review process for its external research program. Scientific merit played little role in the selection of external research projects. The results of the projects were used to generate good publicity for the industry, to deflect attention away from tobacco use as a health danger, and to attempt, sometimes surreptitiously, to influence policymakers.