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.

ObjectiveTo use methods from computational linguistics to identify differences in the rhetorical strategies deployed by defence versus plaintiffs’ lawyers in cigarette litigation.MethodsFrom 318 closing arguments in 159 Engle progeny trials (2008–2016) archived in the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents, we calculated frequency scores and Mann-Whitney Rho scores of plaintiffs versus defence corpora to discover ‘tropes’ (terms used disproportionately by one side) and ‘taboos’ (terms scrupulously avoided by one side or the other).ResultsDefence attorneys seek to place the smoker on trial, using his or her friends and family members to demonstrate that he or she must have been fully aware of the harms caused by smoking. We show that ‘free choice,’ ‘common knowledge’ and ‘personal responsibility’ remain key strategies in cigarette litigation, but algorithmic analysis allows us to understand how such strategies can be deployed without actually using these expressions. Industry attorneys rarely mention personal responsibility, for example, but invoke that concept indirectly, by talking about ‘decisions’ made by the individual smoker and ‘risks’ they assumed.ConclusionsQuantitative analysis can reveal heretofore hidden patterns in courtroom rhetoric, including the weaponisation of pronouns and the systematic avoidance of certain terms, such as ‘profits’ or ‘customer.’ While cigarette makers use words that focus on the individual smoker, attorneys for the plaintiffs refocus agency onto the industry. We show how even seemingly trivial parts of speech—like pronouns—along with references to family members or words like ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ have been weaponised for use in litigation.

Background In recent years, interest has grown in whether and to what extent demographic diversity sparks discovery and innovation in research. At the same time, topic modeling has been employed to discover differences in what women and men write about. This study engages these two strands of scholarship to explore associations between changing researcher demographics and research questions asked in the discipline of history. Specifically, we analyze developments in history as women entered the field. Methods We focus on author gender in diachronic analysis of history dissertations from 1980 (when online data is first available) to 2015 and a select set of general history journals from 1950 to 2015. We use correlated topic modeling and network visualizations to map developments in research agendas over time and to examine how women and men have contributed to these developments. Results Our summary snapshot of aggregate interests of women and men for the period 1950 to 2015 identifies new topics associated with women authors: gender and women’s history, body history, family and households, consumption and consumerism, and sexuality. Diachronic analysis demonstrates that while women pioneered topics such as gender and women’s history or the history of sexuality, these topics broaden over time to become methodological frameworks that historians widely embraced and that changed in interesting ways as men engaged with them. Our analysis of history dissertations surface correlations between advisor/advisee gender pairings and choice of dissertation topic. Conclusions Overall, this quantitative longitudinal study suggests that the growth in women historians has coincided with the broadening of research agendas and an increased sensitivity to new topics and methodologies in the field.