Peters Ellen, Evans Abigail T, Hemmerich Natalie, Berman Micah
Professor, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Post-Doctoral Researcher, Center of Excellence in Regulatory Tobacco Science, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Tob Regul Sci. 2016 Oct;2(4):404-413. doi: 10.18001/TRS.2.4.10. Epub 2016 Oct 1.
The decision in (2012) to invalidate FDA's proposed graphic health warnings was based in part on the reasoning that the proposed graphic warnings cued emotional responses and therefore could not be considered "factual." However, this reasoning demonstrated the courts' fundamental misunderstanding of current behavioral-science research. In contrast to the courts' artificial separation of emotions from fact, we synthesize and interpret relevant research in basic decision sciences and describe an evidence-based characterization of how emotions influence consumer decision making through multiple mechanisms. We then explore how behavioral research gets "lost in translation" in the legal process and recommend ways that behavioral scientists can work with attorneys to remedy this problem. In order for science-based tobacco regulation to survive legal challenges from the tobacco industry, courts must have access to and be able to understand and apply the relevant research. Accordingly, behavioral laboratory researchers must consider the courts as an additional audience when designing research and reporting results. Researchers wishing to influence policy should also work closely with public health lawyers to have the greatest impact on the legal system.
2012年一项判定美国食品药品监督管理局（FDA）提议的图形健康警示无效的裁决，部分基于这样的推理：提议的图形警示引发了情感反应，因此不能被视为“事实性的”。然而，这一推理表明法院对当前行为科学研究存在根本性误解。与法院将情感与事实人为分离不同，我们综合并解读基础决策科学中的相关研究，描述基于证据的关于情感如何通过多种机制影响消费者决策的特征。然后，我们探讨行为研究在法律程序中如何“在翻译中迷失”，并推荐行为科学家与律师合作解决这一问题的方法。为了使基于科学的烟草监管能够经受住烟草行业的法律挑战，法院必须能够获取并理解和应用相关研究。因此，行为实验室研究人员在设计研究和报告结果时，必须将法院视为额外的受众。希望影响政策的研究人员还应与公共卫生律师密切合作，以对法律体系产生最大影响。
