thinkingd the way about how to get control of it tobacco epidemic. . my publisher had in complaining -- has been complaining about how long it took to write his book and i am so please finally see it in its needed -- pleaded for -- completed form. project started when i was seven and my parents in your reason for time -- to new york city for the first time. --ave had one of this the beginning of the book. artief this time, i had been told, it was 1961. there was a lot of categorical scientific evidence that smoking was dangerous. i knew it was that i had this --sion, the badness of smoking was can't to did i something or that it's more thanconstituted a fact on health. all kids were told smoking was, it was only for adults, created in part is appealed. this appeal was anything a natural. it would be studied in vegan of -- studied invention of an industry. board here a slide of a -- billboard. retrospect it looks rather dated and small but i can tell you that the way that the industry became brilliantly successful had learned to cap into theap -- tap heads of kids like me. everyone here knows just how to get tobacco became as a cause of disease and mortality in the 20th century. discharges represent the over chart just represents the deaths is heated with tobacco -- associated with tobacco and how they stack up with other causes of mortality. i decided that there were critical questions i wanted to get into about the meeting -- g ofing -- of --meanin smoking. asked act --ost no aspect of modern life that in some way could not be encapsulated by investigating the history of smoking. foured up framing for -- and then a fifth question. how did smoking come to be so popular in the course of the 20th century? almost no one spoke cigarette late as 1900. -- as recently as 1900. were 15 per capita in 1900, in 1970 it was 4000. use goes backcco nativeearliest days of people in america. how do you go, in a chart like to a from no one smoking majority of men smoking by mid century, and then someone later -- but a very -- a very significant minority of women becoming smokers on midcentury. what were the engine? what were the forces behind this remarkable rise of moving -- smoking? i would like to suggest that if we knew this in a more his dark away -- historical way we would know more about how to address the problem of doping in contemporary cultures. what else a behavior like this? ,t is obviously cultural social, related to advertising and other forms of promotion. will beuke, who tobacco trust as it came to be known. he was very much concerned with how do you move product? on your left machine -- is the whichwhich he -- machine he became committed to. he overproduced cigarette. suddenly he had hundreds, millions of cigarettes to sell. how can i motivate sales in the context of overproduction? part of the argument in the book is that the industry innovated time and time again in the aspect motivation were behaviors. this is the industry that invented card collect. i have a parent of -- i am a parent of voice. boys.arent of -tapping into that kind of psychological behavioral dynamic. we are talking about pokemon. i don't know the next card collection. pokemon dates the also. if you have them collecting baseball players, you can collect women actors. this hasentally, always been an industry on how to initiate and maintain the clientele that you have. this is the industry that freely founded brand identity and national brands. camel is one of the first major national brands. lucky strikes -- it is a very clever campaigns of the mid- 1900s. it pioneers in the idea of clever slogans. it starts on a golf course when the executives are playing golf and one ran out of cigarettes and said i would walk a mile for a camel. a year later, it was up on every billboard around the country. questions iny building in the behavior was about women smokers. although many men came back from the first world war already serious and addicted smokers, there was this question about the propriety of advertising directly to women and encourage them to smoke. this chesterfield add on your left was an early industry attempt to bring them into it. it says below some my way. in a year, but the late 1920's, many as are directed specifically at women. this life magazine cover is from the mid-1930's and captures the idea that not only everyone is smoking, but even brides are smoking behind their veils. this is a popular campaign from the late 1920's and early 1930's -- do you inhale? it's better to inhale a toasted cigarette. i don't really see it, but some of my students think these as are sexually suggestive. [laughter] these are actually drawn by a well-known 1930's pinup artist named john lagardere. some of them are even racier. inhale? everybody is doing it. another popular series of ads from the 30's is when tempted, which were lucky instead of a suite. -- sweet. the american confectioners threaten to sue american tobacco and came up with this instead. this is a part of the integration and into public relations. they had of tobacco in 1928 was concerned that maybe women were not smoking looking strike because of the green packet. is, should we change the color of the package. they say, don't change the color of the package. let's change fashion so that fashion turns green. designer torench focus on green. he holds conferences where he talks about the meaning of the color green. very soon it is the high fashion color. i think that captures something about the social engineering of the cigarette during this. . now we understand much more about what really was incredibly sharply articulated at the time. he has this theory that modern consumerism is about what he calls the engineering of consent and that individuals use -- needed to believe that they were making individual choices in the marketplace. it was the job of the corporation to engineer those decisions which were perceived as individual. remains at the core of even contemporary arguments about the sale of tobacco. to seenot unusual physicians and tobacco ads during this. period of building the behavior. there was a great deal of concern going all the way back to the earliest times. these ads were clearly meant to reassure individuals who might be concerned about the impact of smoking on their health. ads were often pitched with a kind of therapeutic uses. were often used in ads. goods,ocratization of the idea that you could identify with smokers across social boundaries, across socioeconomic status, was a key element of building this behavior. the utilization of smoking in films. workroup has done a love on product placement, but from a very early time the people in the tobacco industry new that having smoking in films would be very beneficial for their product. they wrote articles about how to use cigarettes theatrically in order to convey rage, pensive miss, anxiety, all of which film directors begin to deploy in their films. this is frederick march on your right. on your left, one of the great smoking films of all time, "now, voyager." davis.avis -- bette on your left is bonnie and clyde , and on your right is dana andrews, "beyond a reasonable doubt." just in the mechanics of who is lighting whose cigarette it conveys much of the sexual attraction, the powerful issues of gender, the questions of glamour. all of these are captured in these films. by 1950 this chart suggests we have gone from 2% of all tobacco consumption being in cigarettes in 1900, 281% by 1950. so the question, how did this happen? it is an obvious, collocated set of questions, but now we know a good deal more about how we made the united states, how the tobacco industry made the united states a smoking country. the second question that i focused on is, how do we know smoking is dangerous? i feel funny asking that question, because as all of us know it is the single thing that has been most studied, the single thing that is best understood within modern public health. and if you return it to 1940 or to 1950, this is a very complex question within modern medical science. in fact, the very techniques which today we utilize as a basis of evidence-based medicine, were really formulated in large measure around determining harms of cigarettes in the 1940's and 50's. here is what the industry was saying. these are ads from medical journals in the 1930's and 1940's. they were doing everything they could to subvert this notion of in the biomedical sciences. the ad on the left says, it is one way to read public research. quite another to see them with your own eyes. when i am arguing here is they were doing everything they could to divert attention away from the categorical knowledge that smoking caused disease. a number of researchers began to try to discern -- and today when we look at this chart you can see clearly, it is obvious in relation to it. i invite you back to 1935, or incidents ofen the lung cancer are beginning to rise steeply but there could be any number of hypotheses about why those cases of lung cancer were arriving. some people said it was automobiles. some people said it is paving roads. and so the ability to determine scientifically the relationship of the rise in smoking to lung cancer, which follows it with a lag of about 20 years, was a confiscated and crucially important problem. that although it is often perceived that cancer deaths have increased in the 20th century, it is really lung cancer that stands out as the only cancer which rose so dramatically during the course of this. this is the same chart for women. this got a lot of attention in the mid-1980's when the incidents of lung cancer began to exceed the incidents of breast cancer among american women as a cause of death. these are two of the principal american epidemiologists. one is american, one is british. they were crucial to the development of the epidemiological knowledge that smoking caused lung cancer. they worked with one of the great figures of medical statistics of the 20th century ,nd with a surge of -- surgeon efforts graham to demonstrate by that very meticulous work smoking causes lung cancer. this is how the industry responded. "more doctors smoke camels than any other brand." one of the things i try to show in the book is how the industry tried to encourage the idea that the question of smoking and health should remain an aspect of independent, individual clinical judgment as opposed to being a categorical finding. every doctor should decide for him and herself whether smoking was appropriate for their patient. an ad like this often has glowing portrayals. left, the on your little girl says i am going to possiblyyears old, and she made because the amazing strides of medical science had added years to life expectancy. this one actually appeared in the journal of the american medical association. how mild can a cigarette be? they are telling smokers, take your own test. make your own judgment. this is about unseating medical and scientific knowledge. personal 30 day test. now i know camels are the mildest cigarette i ever smoked. uses of the euphemisms like mild were about suggesting that in fact the problems with the product had been solved. this is the other thing the industry does. it begins, starting in december, 1953, one of the first major campaigns of scientific's information. -- scientific this information disinformation. much, know and we know so that this is really a public relations effort in which one of the documents will find here on the legacy collection says doubt is our product. one of the things we know a lot more now is how industries have used these types of campaigns sowing the seeds of uncertainty in order to do business in the face of new knowledge. these are the ads of four filters which we now know not only did not filter effectively but also reassured an anxious public about the character of the product. .lay safe, smoke chesterfield on the left, and arthur godfrey. a proven affect to smokers. no adverse effects. he later died of lung cancer. , older marlena dietrich than in the earlier photo. scientific tests prove a lucky strike milder than any other brand. is it.derick mark, this l&men dems -- island m -- l filters are just what the doctor orders -- ordered. in groups of tests with consumers they found that if they changed the color to yellow or brown consumers believed they were the most effective filters. at the same time he knew that those filters were not effective for removing any of the carcinogens, but he said i think we should get a patent on this because it could be beneficial to our current market. this is in your collection. 1953. marlborough made the dramatic shift from being a woman's cigarette to being a filtered cigarette directed specifically at men. one of the things i emphasize is the idea of the independent cowboy, one who would do things against the information, against the grain. we have nothings afford adequately about the marlborough campaign with its encouragement of independence in the face of knowledge, living alone on the range. the idea of independence from knowledge is one element. mid-1950's it was absolutely categorical knowledge that smoking causes lung cancer. it has been confirmed that a range of carcinogens and risks. well, ifuestion became something is dangerous what is the role of the state? this is really one of the sorriest stories in the history of tobacco, the question of how would tobacco products and the tobacco industry be regulated? on your left is the tobacco industry research council. you will see one of their people on the far left is actually holding a cigarette. they promised to do research. right, they are announcing the findings of the first surgeon general's report. i argue in the books of the first surgeon general report was actually an important innovation in the government taking responsibility for resolving a had beensy that generated by an industry for the public good. now we do think of these types of central reports as one important mechanism for attempt to end controversy that are often generated by industry. this becomes the model for that kind of work in which they assemble a group of scientists even as the industry tries to influence them. but beyond the first surgeon general reports, there is really not much good evidence of any significant regulatory initiative on the part of the federal government. evenw know that in fact the legislation that follows the first surgeon general report in 55 requiring that cigarette packages be labeled with a warning was actually strongly supported by the tobacco industry, whose lawyers were now advising them it is important to get the warning on the package because it will protect us from possible suits. this is part of a longer story that i can't go into in as much detail as i would like to this afternoon of taking regulation and turning it into the interest of the industry itself. the third question centered on the role of the state. centers onuestion the question of responsibility for the harms of smoking. what is the nature of individual and corporate responsibility for the harms incurred by smoking? this question i focus significantly on questions of the law and litigation. all of you are familiar with the remarkable story of the emergence of tobacco litigation in the second half of the 21st century. people started suing the tobacco companies as early as 1954 for the diseases and deaths that were incurred as a result, almost always without success. the industry had brilliant lawyers, they claw firms, could spend a lot of money. made it incredibly expensive to sue. in the book i spent a lot of time narrating one of the a woman whoases, started smoking around 1941, 1942. like many women during the second world war. she eventually developed lung cancer and a young, very brilliant lawyer sought her out. he thought the time had come that one could successfully sue the company. so beginning in the early 1980's she agrees to sue sides of the big tobacco companies, and her suit goes something like this. the tobacco company said look, we are not sure that smoking culture lung cancer. presentediffs have evidence to suggest that he did, and as you know, we have presented evidence which suggests that smoking did not cause her particular type of cancer. this was a classic industry defense. they said the real issue in the case is not her cancer and what caused it. is that she was an independent, intelligent woman. she knew a lot about the ,ontroversy regarding smoking and she made an independent decision to continue to smoke, so it would be wrong for the jury to hold our companies responsible for the independent and autonomous decision that she had made. this was their argument. she eventually switched cigarettes. arguments they say look, we have seen a well documented in this case. he said, we know that they knew what caused cancer. we know that they knew it was addictive, and yet they put out ads like this and they had a major distant -- disinformation campaign to confuse their patrons. it is time for the companies to beginning -- to begin to take responsible it is for the health impact that over the course of the 20th century has been caused. in the end the jury found in favor of the company and said that she should be held responsible for her smoking. theme inis any single my project, it was an analysis of this individual versus corporate responsibility and how those questions have been articulated and manipulated over the course of the 20th century [no audio] the industry continues to spend over $15 billion a year promoting cigarettes in the united states alone. some campaigns have been quite successful. i think one of the things that began to turn the tide against smoking and in some degree against the industry was the idea that doctors were quitting. that told patients a lot. obviously the critical issues of secondhand smoke. as long as smoking was perceived as an individual risk, tobacco control programs in the u.s. were not going far. the idea that this risk was imposed on non-smokers, as we know especially from the work done here, radically transformed the meeting and nature of smoking in the second half of the 20th century. these are some of the suits that have been successful. , this is mike moore on your left to lead the state attorneys sued. this is rosenblatt. secondhand smoking suit. these are labels. we don't have labels like this in the united states but these are labels from canada and brazil. i was in canada two summers ago and i wanted to bad -- to buy a pack of cigarettes. askedin a drugstore and i the drugstore for that pack and he thought i was crazy because customers would give it back for what he perceived as a less offensive warning label. this turns out to be the fifth and final question. we have seen substantial reductions of smoking in the united states. it is one of the great stories of public health in the 20th century. we went from one -- for people who say it is hard to change behaviors especially in the face we havetry promotion, had significant success in reducing the number of smokers. i began to realize just how parochial that really was. for every american who has quit the industry has been remarkably effective in finding new smokers in foreign lands, especially in developing countries. this raises really profound moral and ethical issues for public health and industry in the 21st century. this is the way it looks. in the year 2000, just seven years ago, about 4 million people died of tobacco-related diseases worldwide, half in the developed world, half in the developing world. in just over 20 years, the number will drop to 10 million. but at that 10 million, 7 million will be in the developing world as a result of the dramatic expansions of smoking which has taken place principally over the last 25 years. philip morris is now doing four to five times its business in the united states overseas. it is making most of its profits by a wide margin by selling overseas. clientsws the modest to versus of the increase since the 1970's in cigarette sales of blog -- abroad. this is a figure that has been widely divisive. we now know that about 100 million people die of tobacco related diseases worldwide in the course of the 20th century. but the world health organization now expects that more than one billion will die of smoking-related diseases in the 21st century, it 10 times increase. inverse is our notion of the relationship between knowledge and practice. generally we believe that in the medical and human sciences that if we know more we can use that knowledge in socially productive and important ways. we can expect a 10 times growth in the number of deaths in the 20% rate. i think this really raises profound questions about morality within health and policy as we look ahead. cambodian monks . and then here are two street scenes, one from shanghai, one from st. petersburg. is ahoto on your left seven-year-old in st. petersburg , same age as when i saw the camel man in 1961. he insists on only smoking barbarous -- marlboros. this photo was taken in 1995. i can't help thinking what has happened to him, the street child in st. petersburg. let me finish by just telling you one last story from the book . graham,ntioned evarts the surgeon. it turns out one of the early people who did epidemiological work. he was skeptical that smoking causes lung cancer. he had developed the surgical techniques for treating individuals with lung cancer in 'se 1930's, lobectomy trying to save the lives of individuals with lung cancer. he had a debate with a colleague , a well-known surgeon. when he first saw the chart of the rise in cancers he was certain that these work caused a cancer. he said i have never seen a lung cancer patient who was not -- who did not smoke. graham was skeptical. they had a debate about it. but eventually as a result of doing his own work he becomes convinced that smoking causes lung cancer. i would just like you read -- to read you one more paragraph. faced with his own research findings he quit smoking so he well understood the difficulty of withdrawing from nicotine. but his five decades of exposure to tobacco smoke would now confirm and the most personal hisintimate way what research had so clearly demonstrated. in 1957 he wrote to his friend and colleague, perhaps you have heard that i have recently been a patient in the hospital because of a bilateral carcinoma which sneaked up on me like a cease in the night. ochsner, deeply shaken by the , wrote back. thank you for your letter. it is horrible to think that you have this disease, a condition for which you have done so much. died a victimr he of the very disease that had been at the center of his professional life. in the end he became yet one more data point in the lethal history of smoking. thank you ray much. [applause] >> i would be happy to take questions. there is a microphone that will go around so we can get your questions on the recording. if you have a question, make sure you get the mic. yes. robert. you have been a participant in litigation as a historian and i was wondering if you could say colleaguesbout your in historical profession and the extent to which they may have testified for one side or the other in tobacco litigation. >> well, robert knows a little bit about how i feel about this. i have been skeptical about testifying in tobacco litigation. clients would come to see me and i would say well, talk to robert. i just felt in a way, , i wanted ite book to have a standing outside of the litigation. a lawyer finally came to see me from the department of justice and he showed me expert statements written by well-known historians and medicine -- in medicine. people who i knew and had respected, people like kenneth r at the university of washington at st. louis. people like peter english at duke university. pediatricians. these guys were testifying on behalf of of philip morris. he showed me their "expert" statement and i was absolutely appalled at the professional historical work that they had done. i just could not believe it. it was controversial, they were skeptics, it was impossible to know. i had been working in the and i justr a decade could not believe that a professional historian would do this. so the lawyer at the doj was very smart. he said to me, the judge is going to believe that professional medical historians side with the industry if you will not testify. and at that point i understood my social responsibility in a new way, in a way that has been in wharton to me personally -- -- important to me personally. workinga lot of time for the interests of public health in this litigation. i think it has been very important. i once thought there were some boundaries in some ways between our work as advocates and our work in the sciences or in the social sciences. the center here shows how important science is to advocacy, and good scientific or historical work is crucial to the efforts of public health. i learned a great deal working for the department of justice and what i think is a very important case, and ultimately the judge decided that in fact the major tobacco companies had violated the fraud and racketeering statutes which congress had initially passed to go against organized crime. i think that speaks volumes about the character of this industry. it is appalling to see professional historians working for the industry in this way. him, have you ever documentsany internal in his answer was no. other questions? here in the back? >> thank you. i was wondering if you could just go over some of the moral and ethical applications for globalization that you mentioned , and specifically do you have any ideas for public and cultural changes? >> yes. it is a very important question. within public health we need to be thinking much more about the larger moral and ethical questions of population health and how to encourage it. i think one of the worst examples of ethical and moral behavior was in the 1980's and early 1990's when our government was working so aggressively to open new markets to american tobacco companies at the very time that our surgeon general was discouraging americans from coming. this raises is just a fundamental question. the result of our quitting is going to be more people smoking someplace else and we really have not audited through adequately -- thought through adequately how to deal with this problem. i followed the evolution of the framework convention for tobacco control, the world first treaty organized for public health and especially for tobacco. the world health organization's first treaty since its inception at the end of the world war. right now it is skeletal. i think it offers opportunities for thinking about global governance in the interrelationship of nationstates and societies, and thinking about controlling risks like a cigarette. when you ask about the moral and ethical issues, over 140 countries have no signed and ratified the framework convention for tobacco control. the principal country that has not is the united states as we all know. has not administration forwarded the treaty for ratification to arsenic. i think these are the kinds of issues we need to be talking about in order to think of new strategies to better human health, and they are compensated because they are often very there are often very powerful industrial and economic interests on the other side. yes. >> i am going to preface my question by saying thank you. as a professional tobacco control research or i find a general history about this deal to be really interesting in terms of framing a much more specific question that i add -- that i ask. i also really enjoyed the book. i want to ask you who you hope reads this book and how your publisher is going to be marketing it. is it? is a general? what you hoping for? >> i have some ambitious hopes for the book. i am very hopeful. i wrote the book and a language in a style, very deliberately, that was not directed at my colleagues. this is a big problem in historical and other social science scholarship because we tend to write for each other. the big orientation in the history of science and medicine is to be more theoretical and more abstruse. there is a lot of that that i have learned a lot from so i have a great respect for theoretical contributions, but that said i think we need to be writing histories that are really for the general public and that are accessible to them and can influence both other researchers and policymakers. one of my hopes is that i wrote the book in that way -- it is long -- because it is a long and compensated story. i think the readers will find points are there to be accessed and the broader moral questions have to be framed in such a way that it can become part of a public debate. this is really my hope for the book. i hope it helps in a small way, i don't want to be grandiose but i help that in its -- in some small way it generates some of these questions. how do we think about public responsibility when it comes to public health? smoking really an aspect simply of individual judgments by adults? i don't think so. i think we really need to direct attention to the historical evolution of that ideal within the culture that the industry has helped to create and then exploit so effectively. >> we will take a question here and then we will pass the mic. a questionsk you that i think i would struggle with also. a lot of our postmodernist theoreticians within social science, medicine, would say fororical advocacy collective control of the public health just plays into perpetuate a disciplinarian, how foucault described a disciplinary operation of power, through surveillance. that goes up against the libertarian political argument often deployed by the tobacco industry or other industrial complexes about individual states,and paternalist underminingacy individual liberties. how doesdoes -- advocacyl scholarship youpublic health, how do reconcile that with some of the critiques that come within our own profession? >> i think what we really need to do is sharpen our arguments about the character of the role of the state and the nature of public health. ofecially in the face certain incredibly powerful economic and industrial interests which really shape many of the questions of global health. i think that there are a lot of questions at stake in the history of the cigarette. they speak to the very broad questions of individual liberties versus the material burden of disease. and if i hit my own field, history of medicine, if it had anything that you to be modified, it is really does. it is that we lost touch a little bit with the material burden of disease, which was always one of the essential questions that historians wanted to understand. how does the material burden of disease change over time and what is the significance? i am sympathetic to reading a lot of theory and bringing it to bear, but i would say my principal goal would be to take on a problem of real significance to human health at a population level and try to understand the dynamics that drive it as well as what our capacity -- in terms of institutions -- might be to remedy those causes of poor health. i think that is a very valuable potential for many new works in the larger field. i think there was a question here. in on theu weighed fda legislation that is currently being debated in congress? giving it a lot of thought. i have obviously followed it closely. it occurs to me that one of the complexities of the debate about fda regulations is for example, stanrception would be -- is against it as is r.j. reynolds. on the other side, phillip morris is for it as is matt so it is a campaign that has split the tobacco industry and has the potential to split the tobacco control advocacy community quite significantly. just from a pragmatic point of view i don't say serious fda regulation coming through this congress. the real question for us is, how has congress failed to adequately bring this industry to regulatory account? there are many things congress could do, from the control of advertising that is directed at policy, toaxation the greater revelation of what is in tobacco. i think congress could act. i am not certain that federal food and drug administration control, at this juncture, is necessarily going lead to significant reduction in the use of tobacco. i am concerned about it in one other way. the industry is obviously at a point where it is searching for the new social legitimacy. the food and drug administration will inevitably eat -- inevitably be used to say, we product regulated by the fda like the pharmaceutical industry. given the particular historical moment we are living through and where i see the philip morris they are saying, we produce a product for adults. it is regulated. we are working on safer product. i think there are vulnerabilities in the current legislation. not to say fda regulation is good or bad. the question i think we have to ask is who will it serve in this particular context through this particular legislation? that is the question. yes. right behind you. >> since there is no evidence that smoking tobacco can be used without producing this and norma's burden of disease, and there is all this evidence that it does produce this enormous burden of disease, why are we asking any other questions other than what is the most strategic way to put an end to smoking tobacco? >> i think that is the question we need to ask. what is the strategic and pragmatic approach to making societies genuinely smoke-free? one of the things i found in the book and i think this is one of the difficulties is, in many ways the cigarette was grandfathered. it was a historic product based on a crop that was grown before .uropeans even got here it became an incredible economic engine of the development of the early state. and so we are dealing with a product with this historical weight, and i don't think that is in ourlly a ban immediate future. that we should be looking very strategically and aggressively at ways of reducing the burden of disease associated with smoking here and around the world. i think we are only at the beginning of that effort. >> this is following up on your question about foucault, which iver having dealt with him, often sail off into another stratosphere. but it did remind me that the concern about the libertarian approach, the concern about individuality and the state, reminds me about an article a few years ago. aboutke about the concern -- in the 50's there was a lot of concern about government manipulation of science, scientists have to be independent of interference by the government, block level -- blah blah. now the concern seems to be shifted towards corporate manipulation of science, and generally cultures are a little slow in picking up and understanding the role that industry plays, manipulating facilitate their bottom line, increase their profits. --m wondering if historians aremodern historians -- taking into account this increased role of corporations in influencing science? >> i think it is a key point. we have talked a lot about the authority of the state and our anxieties about the authority of the state. one of the reasons why states have been active in the 21st century has been in reconciling the authority of industry. a way we have a regulatory authority in united states that has only been partially successful. arguinghe things i am is that in the case of tobacco you have this instance where there is essentially a complete failure in the federal and state regulation of this particular product. it is a very interesting thing about your concerns that the state get involved with science, and obviously after the second world war the not the experience was of tremendous concern. but partly what i am pointing to is the idea that the state had an important role to play in the character of resolving scientific controversies that were both timely and of public moment. i think it is a kind of model for how we might conduct business. obviously in this day and age the tobacco industry creates this problem. we have run into a lot of conflict of interest, and the interest of industry are diffuse. partly what i argue in the book is that the industry created the whole issue of conflict of interest because they have to be dissected in order to have reliable and valid science. it has the aura of the state controlling it, it is not as good as real science. i alert you of this, we see someone using the term, but you can be sure, to a fairly high degree that the tobacco industry has helped fund that work. [laughter] yes. >> thank you so much for your eloquent talk. it has opened up my eyes. i am a psychologist and my research interest is in adolescent and young adult s' decisions to smoke. your talk of caused me some angst, particularly because i'm interested in the individual to smoke. and wondering how you think that will play out now, when it comes to public discourse, and how it will take shape in the scientific community. brandt: i think it is an important question. "i am in charge of me," my kids have told me that since the beginning of time. i think we need strategies to help adolescents and kids assert their independence against certain types of influence, if not, manipulation. where are public health campaigns have got in that direction, we have seen some success. clearly, where the industry wants to be, we don't direct our attention to children, we don't want them smoking. , and one many risks risk that many might take is smoking. usehistory of cigarette subverts that. we know that most people start at younger ages than as adults. most adults want to quit, but find that they can't. locate, for kids, for their individuality, that enhanced ability to resist. it is a little bit like what i was saying about engineering of consent. people really want to believe this is a sign of my independence, my attraction. the en industry says that people do not begin smoking because of advertising, but because of the pressure. what we know is the industry was studying pure pressure, and how to enhance it, in relation to the use of tobacco. i'm very sympathetic to kids and kids to smoke. i talked relatively recently to olds.p of 14-15 year one came up to me and said, i did not have friends until i started smoking. we need to understand better the gainsndary .ssociated with smoking i think there's a much important work to be done in your field. this is a field where if one wants to do good work and public health, we probably have to look over our shoulder at how the industry is framing the questions. we will take a question back here and then we will come to the front. what is your view on the current argument going on on the not takingademics money from the industry? brandt: i'm not sure everyone could hear, but the question was about academic and institutions like yours here, mine at harvard, and many others that have had to confront the idea of taking tobacco money. one of the things that we know from history is many great institutions to tobacco money, going way back. i know harvard researchers had a lot of tobacco money. you may have seen recently that phillip morris gave money to you receive virginia two fund research on tobacco cessation. this remains a critical issue and thinking about the integrity of our institutions. there is no question that the industry used the funding of legitimate academic science to ,nhance its own legitimacy claim the importance of its work. i have to say that i feel very strongly that academic institutions should not be taking tobacco money. irat should be ther policy. they will say, we want to give it for cancer research at the mercy because we believe there should be better cancer research. in this instance, we know how this industry has used those kinds of moneys to curry political and social favor, and legitimate itself in the public eye. i know dean to say, we better not look at where all of our money is coming from, and i know that is the focal. i know there are other important ethical questions about what money comes into your overseas. in this instance, given this history -- and here is where i really base my argument on a historical argument -- if you are filled morris, you can't say, we just started over again, forget this history, we are giving money for good causes. they want this history to go away. i have to say, and here, i really have to tell you how much i admire robert proctor's work. he said, first they bought science, now they want to buy history. as academics, working for institutions that are dedicated to the social good, that is my week work and you receive, we have a we're not taking that money. is the michael brown? mic around? >> would you support a ban on the sale of cigarettes? prof. brandt: i'm thinking seriously about pragmatic policies. what we do know is if figures were no longer sold, we would be benefiting public health and countless ways here and around the world. i do not think that is where the policy debate is right now. am i for banning cigarettes? at this point, it just seems of atoo hypothetical question. i think we should be asking where is the edge of the debate now in terms of getting a hold of the problem. weave no question that if did not have figures, we would be in way better shape. i'm very concerned about the developing world, where they are addressing a burden of disease that combines critical infectious epidemics with non-communicable diseases. we now understand that burden of diseases and a much more effective way than we have in the past. their burden of disease is looks much more like the developed world, only with greater numbers . to be confronting tubercular to us at the same time you are confronting cardiovascular disease, incurred by smokers, it will place a burden on early systems and infrastructures that may be unbearable. >> how do you weigh in an underground market that develops with prohibition? prof. brandt: i am not an thisate for prohibition at point. something that comes up is what about black markets. black markets can also be addressed. i hear my economist friends say they don't like talking about the tobacco problem because of the black market problem. addressed thehas that ared consequences .hen addressed by policy i think strategically we should look at reducing tobacco use. >> [indiscernible] you have to go down the road of debating the legalization of other addictive substances. hand, there is a liberal political argument about decriminalizing other addictive substances because of the social conflicts and social injustice that the realization of it causes. we all very familiar with that. if he ended up with tobacco as the only addictive substance that was virtually prohibited, then you have a level of inconsistency in your argument. dt: i think they are very complicated arguments about bands. s. ban everything is on the table. what we really need to be doing is thinking strategically about how to reduce harms to peoples. this would include illicit and licit drugs. -- any other questions before we stop? this has been a pleasure. it is great to be here. i so admire the work that you are doing. thank you so much for having me. [applause] ♪ >> with her experience married to a five-star general, maybe eisenhower knew how to manage a large staff and demanded nothing less than excellence and her staff. one of theed nation's best dressed for her clothing and hats. mamie eisenhower, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's original series, "first ladies: influence an image," examining the public and private life of the women who filled the role of first lady. from martha washington to michelle obama. tonight at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. >> tonight on "q&a," supreme court correspondent and author of the upcoming series, " landmark cases," tony mauro. >> one of the judges did not get his position because of the suit. dealt with it.rt it was marbury versus madison. marbury was one of those judges. basically, he, probably deserves some remedy, but the remedy that congress has provided for this goes beyond the power of congress, the authority of congress. the supreme court was going to strike down the law. this is something the court had never done before. declaring an act of congress unconstitutional. >> that is tonight on c-span's "q&a." on monday, as the supreme court starts its new term, c-span debuts its new series, "landmark cases." we take a look behind the famous ,arbury versus madison case the marshall established court as the interpreter of the constitution. >> marbury versus madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. discussion, akhil sloan.mar and cliff premieres live this monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span 3, and c-span radio. for background on this case what you watch, order your copy of " companion book. in august 1940 5, 70 years ago, american forces dropped two atomic bombs over japan.