Advertisement
AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow purchase articles
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Get other permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, L. C.
Right arrow Articles by Banthin, C. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, L. C.
Right arrow Articles by Banthin, C. N.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health Law
Right arrow Government
Right arrow Other Tobacco
Right arrow Tobacco Control
Right arrow Secondhand Smoke
July 2005, Vol 95, No. S1 | American Journal of Public Health S16-S20
© 2005 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.046227

GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, AND LAW

How Tobacco-Friendly Science Escapes Scrutiny in the Courtroom

Lissy C. Friedman, JD, Richard A. Daynard, JD, PhD and Christopher N. Banthin, JD

Lissy C. Friedman and Christopher C. Banthin are with the Tobacco Control Resource Center, Boston, Mass. Richard A. Daynard is with Northeastern University School of Law, Boston.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Lissy C. Friedman, Tobacco Control Resource Center, 102 The Fenway, Room 117, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: lissy{at}tplp.org).

Although the tobacco industry helped fund the attack on "junk science," it has created its own dubious scientific scholarship for its expert witnesses.

We suggest that plaintiffs’ counsel should be proactive in using Daubert hearings to exclude the tobacco industry defendants’ scientific expert witnesses by introducing documentation, such as we have found through researching previously privileged internal industry documents, to prove that much of their proposed testimony was developed by and for their lawyers.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
J E Cohen, M Zeller, T Eissenberg, M Parascandola, R O'Keefe, L Planinac, and S Leischow
Criteria for evaluating tobacco control research funding programs and their application to models that include financial support from the tobacco industry
Tob. Control, June 1, 2009; 18(3): 228 - 234.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Toxicol Ind HealthHome page
L. Claxton
A review of conflict of interest, competing interest, and bias for toxicologists
Toxicology and Industrial Health, November 1, 2007; 23(10): 557 - 571.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
J. E Henningfield, C. A Rose, and M. Zeller
Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction: continued dependence on past views
Tob. Control, December 1, 2006; 15(suppl_4): iv27 - iv36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJPHHome page
W. K. Viscusi
FALSE CLAIMS IN TOBACCO LITIGATION JUNK SCIENCE ARTICLE
Am J Public Health, May 1, 2006; 96(5): 767 - 767.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJPHHome page
D. Michaels
Scientific Evidence and Public Policy
Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S5 - S7.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Public Health Association