Tobacco industry lawyers as "disease vectors"
- PMID: 17652236
- PMCID: PMC2598535
- DOI: 10.1136/tc.2006.018390
Tobacco industry lawyers as "disease vectors"
Abstract
Objective: Despite their obligation to do so, tobacco companies often failed to conduct product safety research or, when research was conducted, failed to disseminate the results to the medical community and to the public. The tobacco company lawyers' role in these actions was investigated with a focus on their involvement in company scientific research, claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product cover, document concealment, and litigation tactics.
Methods: Searches of previously secret internal tobacco industry documents located at Tobacco Documents Online. Additional searches included court transcripts, legal cases and articles obtained through Westlaw, PubMed, and the internet.
Results: Tobacco company lawyers have been involved in activities having little or nothing to do with the practice of law, including gauging and attempting to influence company scientists' beliefs, vetting in-house scientific research, and instructing in-house scientists not to publish potentially damaging results. Additionally, company lawyers have taken steps to manufacture attorney-client privilege and work-product cover to assist their clients in protecting sensitive documents from disclosure, have been involved in the concealment of such documents, and have employed litigation tactics that have largely prevented successful lawsuits against their client companies.
Conclusions: Tobacco related diseases have proliferated partly because of tobacco company lawyers. Their tactics have impeded the flow of information about the dangers of smoking to the public and the medical community. Additionally, their extravagantly aggressive litigation tactics have pushed many plaintiffs into dropping their cases before trial, thus reducing the opportunities for changes to be made to company policy in favour of public health. Stricter professional oversight is needed to ensure that this trend does not continue.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None.
Similar articles
-
Lawyer control of internal scientific research to protect against products liability lawsuits. The Brown and Williamson documents.JAMA. 1995 Jul 19;274(3):234-40. JAMA. 1995. PMID: 7609232
-
Tobacco company efforts to influence the Food and Drug Administration-commissioned Institute of Medicine report clearing the smoke: an analysis of documents released through litigation.PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001450. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001450. Epub 2013 May 28. PLoS Med. 2013. PMID: 23723740 Free PMC article.
-
Epidemiology of the third wave of tobacco litigation in the United States, 1994-2005.Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):iv9-16. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.016725. Tob Control. 2006. PMID: 17130629 Free PMC article.
-
Playing hide-and-seek with the tobacco industry.Nicotine Tob Res. 2005 Feb;7(1):27-40. doi: 10.1080/14622200412331328529. Nicotine Tob Res. 2005. PMID: 15804675 Review.
-
The Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (DATTA) project: origins, aims, and methods.Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):iv4-8. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.016667. Tob Control. 2006. PMID: 17130623 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Analysis of British American Tobacco's questionable use of privilege and protected document claims at the Guildford Depository.Tob Control. 2017 May;26(3):316-322. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-052955. Epub 2016 Jun 27. Tob Control. 2017. PMID: 27354678 Free PMC article.
-
Philip Morris's health information web site appears responsible but undermines public health.Public Health Nurs. 2008 Nov-Dec;25(6):554-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2008.00743.x. Public Health Nurs. 2008. PMID: 18950420 Free PMC article.
-
"Working the system"--British American tobacco's influence on the European union treaty and its implications for policy: an analysis of internal tobacco industry documents.PLoS Med. 2010 Jan 12;7(1):e1000202. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000202. PLoS Med. 2010. PMID: 20084098 Free PMC article.
-
Waking a sleeping giant: the tobacco industry's response to the polonium-210 issue.Am J Public Health. 2008 Sep;98(9):1643-50. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.130963. Epub 2008 Jul 16. Am J Public Health. 2008. PMID: 18633078 Free PMC article.
-
"A good personal scientific relationship": Philip Morris scientists and the Chulabhorn Research Institute, Bangkok.PLoS Med. 2008 Dec 23;5(12):1737-48. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050238. PLoS Med. 2008. PMID: 19108600 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Bratton R L, Corey G R. Tick‐borne disease. Am Fam Physician 2005712323–2330. - PubMed
-
- Sweanor D. Why tobacco companies proceed as they do. Presented at INGCAT International NGO Mobilisation Meeting, 15–16 May 1999, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.islamset.com/healnews/smoking/INGCAT/David_Sweanor.html (accessed 6 Feb 2007)
-
- Written Examination of Jeffrey Wigand, PhD In United States v Philip Morris USA, Inc, Civil Action Number 99‐CV‐02496(GK) (D DC). http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/Wigand_Written%20Direct%20Test... (accessed 6 Feb 2007)
-
- Attributed to Witt S B. Memorandum concerning scientists and scientific research prepared by RJR in‐house legal counsel to assist in the rendering of legal advice. 10 May 1983. RJ Reynolds. Bates Number 505745988/5992. http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_rjr/505745988‐5992.html (accessed 6 Feb 2007)
-
- Attributed to Finnegan T M, Medinger J. Draft Report from RJR outside legal counsel to RJR in‐house legal counsel containing legal counsel's analysis of research and development and smoking and health matters. 12 March 1983. RJ Reynolds. Bates No 505745870/5885. http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_rjr/505745870‐5885.html (accessed 6 Feb 2007)
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources