Literature DB >> 7609232

Lawyer control of internal scientific research to protect against products liability lawsuits. The Brown and Williamson documents.

P Hanauer1, J Slade, D E Barnes, L Bero, S A Glantz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: 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. DATA SOURCES: Documents from B&W, the British American Tobacco Company (BAT), and other tobacco interests provided by an anonymous source, obtained from Congress, or received from the private papers of a former BAT officer. STUDY SELECTION: All available materials, including confidential reports regarding research and internal memoranda exchanged between tobacco industry lawyers.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7609232

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  12 in total

1.  How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke.

Authors:  Mi-Kyung Hong; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-12-14

Review 2.  Tobacco industry manipulation of research.

Authors:  Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.792

3.  Every document and picture tells a story: using internal corporate document reviews, semiotics, and content analysis to assess tobacco advertising.

Authors:  S J Anderson; T Dewhirst; P M Ling
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 4.  Open doorway to truth: legacy of the Minnesota tobacco trial.

Authors:  Richard D Hurt; Jon O Ebbert; Monique E Muggli; Nikki J Lockhart; Channing R Robertson
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 7.616

5.  Goliath and some Davids in the tobacco wars.

Authors:  M Susser
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 6.  Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses.

Authors:  John A Francis; Amy K Shea; Jonathan M Samet
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.552

7.  Tobacco industry sociological programs to influence public beliefs about smoking.

Authors:  Anne Landman; Daniel K Cortese; Stanton Glantz
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 8.  Destroyed documents: uncovering the science that Imperial Tobacco Canada sought to conceal.

Authors:  David Hammond; Michael Chaiton; Alex Lee; Neil Collishaw
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 9.  Tobacco industry lawyers as "disease vectors".

Authors:  Sara D Guardino; Richard A Daynard
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 10.  Tobacco documents research methodology.

Authors:  Stacey J Anderson; Phyra M McCandless; Kim Klausner; Rachel Taketa; Valerie B Yerger
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 6.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.