The Beginning

On December 11, 1991, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published three studies that examined the effect of the Camel cigarette “Old Joe” advertising campaign on adolescents and children. I was lead author on the study that showed that “Old Joe” was nearly universally recognized by six-year-old children, a level of awareness that matched the logo for the Disney Channel. Because cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease in this country, I recognized that this research might play a prominent role in the subsequent debate about tobacco advertising. As a scientist, I naively assumed that this discourse would be conducted in academic journals based upon rigorous research and leading to an improved understanding of whether and how advertising influences adolescent experimentation with cigarettes. To date, most of the subsequent debate has occurred in court.

From the beginning, the tobacco industry attempted to discredit this research and harass the researchers. My experience in confronting the tobacco industry has taught me how easily the courts can become the unwitting accomplices of an industry whose goal is profit, not the identification of scientific truth. Michael Traynor has written that with “common sense and goodwill in every quarter,” there should be few problems due to compelled discovery of scholarly research. Unfortunately, in some cases, neither common sense nor goodwill prevail. In such cases, the court can become an instrument of abuse.