E-cigarettes: A framework for comparative history and policy.

BACKGROUND: England, Australia and the United States have approached the regulation of e-cigarettes in very different ways, yet all three countries have appealed to the concept of evidence as underpinning policy responses. We compared these policy responses using a combination of the methodologies of historians and policy scientists in order to elucidate the factors that had influenced policy in each country. ARGUMENT/ANALYSIS: Each country's evidence and values intersected in different ways, producing very different responses within specific national contexts and histories. Our analysis accordingly emphasized the historical precursors of the policy issues raised by e-cigarettes and placed the policy debate within the context of regulatory bodies and the networks of researchers and advocates who influenced policy. Issues also of importance were the nature of the state; political context; the pre-history of nicotine for smoking cessation; the role of activism and its links with government; the influence of harm reduction ideas from drugs and HIV; and finally, whom policy was perceived to benefit. In the United Kingdom, based on this pre-history of the smoking issue, it was the existing smoker, while in the United States and Australia, protecting children and adolescents has played a central role. CONCLUSIONS: Structural and historical factors appear to underpin differences in e-cigarette policy development in England, Australia and the United States.

Vexing, Veiled, and Inequitable: Social Distancing and the "Rights" Divide in the Age of COVID-19.

Although unprecedented in scope and beyond all our life experiences, sweeping social distancing measures are not without historical precedent. Historically, racism, stigma, and discrimination resulted in grossly inequitable application of disease containment measures. But history also provides examples in which broad measures enjoyed remarkable public support. When it comes to COVID-19, blame and division continue to shape containment responses. But the COVID-19 pandemic also resonates with moments in which there was broad social support for containment precisely because lockdowns or stay at home orders are, on the surface, remarkably equitable. Yet even in a context in which a majority of Americans support social distancing, small but coordinated conservative groups are challenging social distancing as a matter of individual rights. In sharp contrast, vulnerable populations, who bear the heaviest burden of disease, have claimed a right to social distancing as a matter of protection.

Is Moderate Drinking Protective Against Heart Disease? The Science, Politics and History of a Public Health Conundrum.

Policy Points For more than 40 years, most research by epidemiologists, social scientists, and alcohol policy experts found that moderate alcohol consumption was cardioprotective. In the early 2000s, that consensus was shaken by new critics who subjected the previous research to vigorous methodological and empirical analysis, precipitating a bitter controversy, seemingly unresolvable despite numerous observational epidemiological studies. The effort to finally put that debate to rest through a large, multiyear randomized controlled trial under the aegis of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, generated external criticism and adverse newspaper coverage, particularly because the trial was largely funded by the alcohol industry, forcing National Institutes of Health leadership to abruptly terminate the study shortly after it started. In the absence of definitive evidence and given the contentious debate over the risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption, those who formulate health policy have a responsibility to clearly acknowledge to the public the existence of evidentiary uncertainty when making recommendations.

The E-Cigarette Debate: What Counts as Evidence?

Two major public health evaluations of e-cigarettes-one from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), the other from Public Health England (PHE)-were issued back to back in the winter of 2018. While some have read these analyses as broadly consistent, providing support for the view that e-cigarettes could play a role in smoking harm reduction, in every major respect, they come to very different conclusions about what the evidence suggests in terms of public health policy. How is that possible? The explanation rests in what the 2 reports see as the central challenge posed by e-cigarettes, which helped to determine what counted as evidence. For NASEM, the core question was how to protect nonsmokers from the potential risks of exposure to nicotine and other contaminants or from the risk of smoking combustible cigarettes through renormalization. A precautionary standard was imperative, making evidence that could speak most conclusively to the question of causality paramount. For PHE, the priority was how to reduce the burdens now borne by current smokers, burdens reflected in measurable patterns of morbidity and mortality. With a focus on immediate harms, PHE turned to evidence that was "relevant and meaningful." Thus, competing priorities determined what counted as evidence when it came to the impact of e-cigarettes on current smokers, nonsmoking bystanders, and children and adolescents. A new clinical trial demonstrating the efficacy of e-cigarettes as a cessation tool makes understanding how values and framing shape core questions and conclusive evidence imperative.

The Two Faces of Fear: A History of Hard-Hitting Public Health Campaigns Against Tobacco and AIDS.

Fear is now commonly used in public health campaigns, yet for years ethical and efficacy-centered concerns provided a challenge to using fear in such efforts. From the 1950s through the 1970s, the field of public health believed that using fear to influence individual behavior would virtually always backfire. Yet faced with the limited effectiveness of informational approaches to cessation, antitobacco campaigns featured fear in the 1960s. These provoked little protest outside the tobacco industry. At the outset of the AIDS epidemic, fear was also employed. However, activists denounced these messages as stigmatizing, halting use of fear for HIV/AIDS until the 21st century. Opposition began to fracture with growing concerns about complacency and the risks of HIV transmission, particularly among gay men. With AIDS, fear overcame opposition only when it was framed as fair warning with the potential to correct misperceptions.

La Organización Mundial de la Salud, la ética de la salud pública y la vigilancia conforman la arquitectura esencial para el bienestar social

La vigilancia de las enfermedades ha sido una de las funciones básicas de la salud pública desde fines del siglo XIX: es la base de los programas para promover el bienestar humano a nivel de la población y el cimiento de la respuesta a las epidemias y los brotes de enfermedades. Sin embargo, va mucho más allá de las enfermedades infecciosas. Puede contribuir a reducir las desigualdades, puesto que algunas causas de sufrimiento injusto, injustificado y prevenible no pueden abordarse sin primero hacerlas visibles…

Precision Medicine from a Public Health Perspective.

Over the past decade, precision medicine (PM) approaches have received significant investment to create new therapies, learn more about disease processes, and potentially prevent diseases before they arise. However, in many ways, PM investments may come at the expense of existing public health measures that could have a greater impact on population health. As we tackle burgeoning public health concerns, such as obesity, and chronic diseases, such as cancer, it is not clear whether PM is aligned with public health or in conflict with its goals. We summarize the areas of promise demonstrated by PM, discuss the limitations of each of these areas from a population health perspective, and discuss how we can approach PM in a manner that is congruent with the core aims of public health.

The End of Written Informed Consent for HIV Testing: Not With a Bang but a Whimper.

In 2014, only two states in the United States still mandated specific written informed consent for HIV testing and, after years of controversy, New York ended this requirement, leaving only Nebraska. New York's shift to opt-out testing meant that a singular feature of what had characterized the exceptionalism surrounding HIV testing was eliminated. We trace the history of debates on written informed consent nationally and in New York State. Over the years of dispute from when HIV testing was initiated in 1985 to 2014, the evidence about the benefits and burdens of written informed consent changed. Just as important was the transformation of the political configuration of HIV advocacy and funding, both nationwide and in New York State. What had for years been the subject of furious debate over what a rational and ethical screening policy required came to an end without the slightest public protest. (Am J Public Health. 2017;107:1259-1265. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303819).