rss
Tob Control 10:329-336 doi:10.1136/tc.10.4.329
  • Original article

Science in regulatory policy making: case studies in the development of workplace smoking restrictions

  1. Lisa A Beroa,
  2. Theresa Montinib,
  3. Katherine Bryan-Jonesc,
  4. Christina Manguriand
  1. aDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA, bDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, cDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, dSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
  1. Lisa A Bero, PhD, Professor, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA 94143-0936 (or 94118 for express mail only), USAbero{at}medicine.ucsf.edu
  • Received 5 April 2001
  • Revised 27 July 2001
  • Accepted 13 September 2001

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To study the role of science related and other arguments in the development of workplace smoking regulations.

DESIGN Case study, content analysis

SUBJECTS Written commentaries and hearing transcripts on proposed indoor air regulations in Maryland and Washington.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES We coded each written commentary and hearing testimony for position toward the regulation, affiliation of the person submitting it, criteria used to evaluate science and scientific, ideological, economic, political, engineering and procedural arguments.

RESULTS In both states, opposition to the regulations came primarily from the tobacco industry, small businesses, and business organisations and appeared to be coordinated. There was little coordination of public health support for the regulations. Arguments about science were used more often by those opposed to the regulations than by those in favour. Supporters emphasised the quantity of the evidence, while opponents criticised its reliability, validity, and quality. Arguments not related to science (61% of total arguments; 459/751), were more common than scientific arguments (39% of total arguments; 292/751). Economic and ideological arguments were used to a similar extent by regulation supporters and opponents.

CONCLUSIONS Advocates can support health related regulations by submitting commentary emphasising the sound research base for regulation and countering criticisms of research. National coordination of these efforts could avoid duplication of effort and make more efficient use of limited public health resources.

Footnotes

  •  One person who submitted both a written commentary and gave oral testimony in favour of the Maryland regulation was tobacco industry affiliated. This commentary was submitted by Robert Glenn of the Maryland Industrial Hygiene Council and was coded as tobacco industry affiliated because the commentary stated that it was submitted at the request of Bruce Bereano, an attorney for the Tobacco Institute. Although the Tobacco Institute requested the commentary, it concluded:  “Smoking in the workplace represents a major source of exposure to toxicants for which the employer has a duty and obligation to protect his or her employees . . . There should be renewed efforts by regulatory agencies and companies to eliminate smoking in the workplace. I would ask that you support Maryland occupational safety and health regulations to prohibit smoking in the workplace.”

Responses to this article