COMMENTARY

"Everyone knew but no one had proof": tobacco industry use of medical history expertise in US courts, 1990–2002

Robert N Proctor

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor Robert N Proctor
History Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; rproctor{at}stanford.edu

Historians have played an important role in recent tobacco litigation, helping the industry with its defence of "common knowledge" and "open controversy". Historians re-narrate the past, creating an account for judges and juries that makes it appear that "everyone has always known" that cigarettes are harmful, meaning that smokers have only themselves to blame for their illnesses. Medical historians are also employed to argue that "honest doubts" persisted in the medical community long past the 1950s, justifying as responsible the industry’s longstanding claim of "no proof" of hazards. The industry’s experts emphasise the "good science" supported by the industry, and ignore the industry’s role in spreading doubts about the reality of tobacco hazards.

Abbreviations: TRIC, Tobacco Industry Research Council

Keywords: open controversy; medical history; expert witnesses; tobacco litigation; agnotology

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Stevenson, T., Proctor, R. N. (2008). The SECRET and SOUL of Marlboro: Phillip Morris and the Origins, Spread, and Denial of Nicotine Freebasing. AJPH 98: 1184-1194 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Henningfield, J. E, Rose, C. A, Zeller, M. (2006). Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction: continued dependence on past views. Tobacco Control 15: iv27-iv36 [Abstract] [Full Text]