Tobacco industry use of personal responsibility rhetoric in public relations and litigation: disguising freedom to blame as freedom of choice.

We examined the tobacco industry's rhetoric to frame personal responsibility arguments. The industry rarely uses the phrase "personal responsibility" explicitly, but rather "freedom of choice." When freedom of choice is used in the context of litigation, the industry means that those who choose to smoke are solely to blame for their injuries. When used in the industry's public relations messages, it grounds its meaning in the concept of liberty and the right to smoke. The courtroom "blame rhetoric" has influenced the industry's larger public relations message to shift responsibility away from the tobacco companies and onto their customers. Understanding the rhetoric and framing that the industry employs is essential to combating this tactic, and we apply this comprehension to other industries that act as disease vectors.

Junking good science: undoing Daubert v Merrill Dow through cross-examination and argument.

For more than 40 years, the tobacco industry prevailed in lawsuits brought by injured smokers, despite overwhelming epidemiological evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. Tobacco lawyers were able to create doubt about causation. They sought to persuade jurors that "everybody knew" smoking was harmful but "nobody knows" what causes cancer by recreating in court the scientific debate resolved by the 1964 Surgeon General's Report. The particularistic structure of jury trials combined with the law's mechanistic view of causation enables a defendant to contest virtually any claim concerning disease causation. Despite judicial efforts to eliminate "junk science" from lawsuits, a well-financed defendant may succeed in persuading jurors of the epidemiological equivalent of the proposition that the earth is flat.