Tobacco firms rebutted passive-smoking claims by attacking the science

Evidence

Tobacco smoke, the industry contended, was erroneously blamed for respiratory problems because it is so visible. Industry officials attempted to rebut arguments about its adverse effects: “Conduct research to anticipate and refute claims about the health effects of passive smoking” (Irwin, 1983). In addition, industry officials challenged the reliability of the research findings: “The alleged harm done by smoking to innocent bystanders by ‘environmental tobacco smoke’ (ETS) … has been used with great success by the anti-tobacco activists to bolster the arguments for government intervention… . However, the data continue to be inconclusive” (Bennett & Di Lorenzo, 1997). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1669

Categorization

• XREF: Direct example of the moral disengagement mechanism of disputing evidence — likely echoes the book’s treatment of euphemistic labeling and culpability displacement. — connects to: Tobacco executives publicly claimed no proof existed while privately knowing otherwise — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False…, 323; The tobacco industry invented science denial as public-relations strategy — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 63; The tobacco industry’s manufactured-doubt playbook became a template for all later science denial. — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 67