On the Origins of the Electronic Cigarette: British American Tobacco's Project Ariel (1962-1967).

Electronic cigarettes are advertised as the latest technological gadget-the smoking equivalent of smart phones. I challenge this sense of novelty by tracing their history to the 1960s, when researchers at British American Tobacco first recognized that smokers' brains were dependent on nicotine. This discovery enabled British American Tobacco to develop a novel kind of smoking device under the codename "Ariel" between 1962 and 1967. Whereas filters were meant to eliminate specific harmful constituents of tobacco smoke, Project Ariel tried to reduce smoking to its alkaloid essence: nicotine. By heating instead of burning tobacco, the scientists working on Ariel managed to produce an aerosol smoking device that delivered nicotine with very little tar while retaining the look and feel of a cigarette. However, after receiving two patents for Ariel, British American Tobacco ultimately decided to abandon the project to avoid endangering cigarettes, its main product. Today, as e-cigarettes are surging in popularity, it is worth revisiting Ariel because it is not just an episode in the history of aerosol smoking devices but its starting point.

Philip Morris research on precursors to the modern e-cigarette since 1990.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is increasing rapidly. Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik is frequently cited as inventing the modern e-cigarette in 2003. However, tobacco companies have developed electronic nicotine delivery systems since at least 1963. METHODS: We searched the University of California San Francisco Truth (formerly Legacy) Tobacco Industry Documents beginning with the terms 'electric cigarette' and 'electronic cigarettes', 'e-cigarette', 'smokeless cigarettes', 'nicotine aerosol', 'tobacco aerosol', and 'vaping' and then expanded the search using snowball sampling. We focused our analysis on Philip Morris (PM) documents discussing technology that aerosolised a nicotine solution because these devices resembled modern e-cigarettes. Over 1000 documents were reviewed; 40 were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: PM started developing a nicotine aerosol device in 1990 to address the health concerns and decreased social acceptability of smoking that were leading smokers to switch to nicotine replacement therapy. PM had developed a capillary aerosol generator that embodied basic e-cigarette technology in 1994, but in the mid-to-late 1990s focused on applying its aerosol technology to pharmaceutical applications because of uncertainty of how such products might affect potential Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco products. In 2001, PM resumed its work on a nicotine aerosol device, and in 2013, NuMark (a division of Altria, PM's parent company) released the MarkTen, a nicotine aerosol device. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than a disruptive technology, PM developed e-cigarette technology to complement, not compete with, conventional cigarettes and evade tobacco control regulations.

History and the future: Looking back to look forward?

History is often dismissed as of little utility in the analysis of policy. This paper provides a justification for its use as evidence. It surveys the rise of the use of history, including public history and history and policy. It looks at two issues which draw on the author's own work: the relationship between regulation and culture for smoking and alcohol; and the response to electronic cigarettes in the light of smoking and public health history. It analyses what history can contribute. Responses are time dependent and change is an essential parameter in understanding policy. Historical research can challenge stereotypes, for example that prohibition was abandoned because it 'failed'. It also forms the bedrock of historical interpretation, which is mutable and often misunderstood outside the profession. History provides policy analysis rather than policy prescription and is a challenging approach, not just a convenient support for established positions. The paper concludes that history is far from moribund as a policy science.

Nicorette reborn? E-cigarettes in light of the history of nicotine replacement technology.

BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes are currently hotly debated as threatening to re-normalize cigarette smoking and make nicotine addiction publicly acceptable once more. In this paper I contextualize the e-cigarette controversy in light of longstanding disagreements about the meaning and significance of nicotine replacement technologies. A concerted effort to develop such technologies first emerged in Sweden at the end of the 1960s, embodying a vital tension. Two competing 'scripts' vied to influence and shape innovative designs. On the one hand, Nicorette chewing gum was conceived as a therapeutic device aiding smoking cessation. On the other hand, it was cast as a cigarette substitute designed to deliver nicotine 'in the right way', thereby advancing the creative destruction of the combustible cigarette as a drug delivery platform. METHOD: Drawing on historical and archival research I outline how these two alternative innovation scripts started out entangled with each other before becoming disentangled, leading to the eventual stabilization of Nicorette gum as a therapeutic product to be deployed in the treatment of smoking as a dependence disorder. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: While a post-therapeutic future for nicotine replacement was charted by Michael Russell at the beginning of the 1990s, it is only with the rise of e-cigarettes after 2003 that such a future has started to verge on reality. E-cigarettes can be seen as resurrecting the historically marginalized script of nicotine replacement as dedicated to righting nicotine consumption and freeing it from the wrongful drug delivery of the modern cigarette.