Big science is a term used by scientists and historians of science to describe a series of changes in science which occurred in industrial nations during and after World War II,
as scientific progress increasingly came to rely on large-scale
projects usually funded by national governments or groups of
governments. Individual or small group efforts, or Small Science,
are still relevant today as theoretical results by individual authors
may have a significant impact, but very often the empirical verification
requires experiments using constructions, such as the Large Hadron Collider, costing between $5 and $10 billion.
Development
While science and technology have always been important to and driven by warfare, the increase in military funding of science following the second World War was on a scale wholly unprecedented. James Conant, in a 1941 letter to Chemical Engineering News, said that World War II "is a physicist's war rather than a chemist's,"
a phrase that was cemented in the vernacular in post-war discussion of
the role that those scientists played in the development of new weapons
and tools, notably the proximity fuse, radar, and the atomic bomb.
The bulk of these last two activities took place in a new form of
research facility: the government-sponsored laboratory, employing
thousands of technicians and scientists, managed by universities (in this case, the University of California and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
In the shadow of the first atomic weapons, the importance of a
strong scientific research establishment was apparent to any country
wishing to play a major role in international politics. After the
success of the Manhattan Project,
governments became the chief patron of science, and the character of
the scientific establishment underwent several key changes. This was
especially marked in the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but also to a lesser extent in many other countries.
Definitions
"Big science" usually implies one or more of these specific characteristics:
Big budgets: No longer required to rely on philanthropy or industry, scientists were able to use budgets on an unprecedented scale for basic research.
Big staffs: Similarly, the number of practitioners of science
on any one project grew as well, creating difficulty, and often
controversy, in the assignment of credit for scientific discoveries (the
Nobel Prize
system, for example, allows awarding only three individuals in any one
topic per year, based on a 19th-century model of the scientific
enterprise).
Big machines: Ernest Lawrence's cyclotron at his Radiation Laboratory
in particular ushered in an era of massive machines (requiring massive
staffs and budgets) as the tools of basic scientific research. The use
of many machines, such as the many sequencers used during the Human Genome Project, might also fall under this definition.
Big laboratories: Because of the increase in cost to do
basic science (with the increase of large machines), centralization of
scientific research in large laboratories (such as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory or CERN) has become a cost-effective strategy, though questions over facility access have become prevalent.
Towards the end of the 20th century, not only projects in basic physics and astronomy, but also in life sciences became big sciences, such as the massive Human Genome Project.
The heavy investment of government and industrial interests into
academic science has also blurred the line between public and private
research, where entire academic departments, even at public
universities, are often financed by private companies. Not all Big
Science is related to the military concerns which were at its origins.
Criticism
The era of Big Science has provoked criticism that it undermines the basic principles of the scientific method. Increased government funding has often meant increased military funding, which some claim subverts the Enlightenment-era ideal of science as a pure quest for knowledge. For example, historian Paul Forman has argued that during World War II and the Cold War, the massive scale of defense-related funding prompted a shift in physics from basic to applied research.
Many scientists also complain that the requirement for increased
funding makes a large part of the scientific activity filling out grant
requests and other budgetary bureaucratic activity, and the intense
connections between academic, governmental, and industrial interests
have raised the question of whether scientists can be completely
objective when their research contradicts the interests and intentions
of their benefactors.
In addition, widespread sharing of scientific knowledge is necessary for rapid progress for both basic and applied sciences.
However the sharing of data can be impeded for a number of reasons. For
example, scientific findings can be classified by military interests or
patented by corporate ones. Grant competitions, while they stimulate
interest in a topic, can also increase secretiveness among scientists
because application evaluators may value uniqueness more than
incremental, collaborative inquiry.
Historiography of Big Science
The popularization of the term "Big Science" is usually attributed to an article by Alvin M. Weinberg, then director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, published in Science in 1961. This was a response to Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, in which the departing U.S. president warned against the dangers of what he called the "military–industrial complex" and the potential "domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money". Weinberg compared the large-scale enterprise of science in the 20th century to the wonders of earlier civilization (the pyramids, the palace of Versailles):
When history looks at the 20th century, she will see science
and technology as its theme; she will find in the monuments of Big
Science—the huge rockets, the high-energy accelerators, the high-flux
research reactors—symbols of our time just as surely as she finds in
Notre Dame a symbol of the Middle Ages. ... We build our monuments in
the name of scientific truth, they built theirs in the name of religious
truth; we use our Big Science to add to our country's prestige, they
used their churches for their cities' prestige; we build to placate what
ex-President Eisenhower suggested could become a dominant scientific
caste, they built to please the priests of Isis and Osiris.
Weinberg's article addressed criticisms of the way in which the era
of Big Science could negatively affect science — such as astronomer Fred Hoyle's
contention that excessive money for science would only make science fat
and lazy — and encouraged, in the end, limiting Big Science only to the
national laboratory system and preventing its incursion into the university system.
Since Weinberg's article there have been many historical and
sociological studies on the effects of Big Science both in and out of
the laboratory. Soon after that article, Derek J. de Solla Price gave a series of lectures that were published in 1963 as Little Science, Big Science.
The book describes the historical and sociological transition from
"small science" to "big science" and the qualitative differences between
the two; it inspired the field of scientometrics as well as new perspectives on large-scale science in other fields.
The Harvard historian Peter Galison has written several books
addressing the formation of big science. Major themes include the
evolution of experimental design, from table-top experiments to today's
large-scale collider projects; accompanying changes in standards of
evidence; and discourse patterns across researchers whose expertise only
partially overlaps. Galison introduced the notion of "trading zones,"
borrowed from the sociolinguistic study of pidgins, to characterize how such groups learn to interact.
Other historians have postulated many "precursors" to Big Science in earlier times: the Uraniborg of Tycho Brahe (in which massive astronomical instruments were made, often with little practical purpose) and the large cryogenics laboratory established by Heike Kamerlingh Onnes in 1904 have been cited as early examples of Big Science.
The Oxford English Dictionary identifies the first use of the term, in 1905, to be in "The City: The Hope of Democracy", Frederic C. Howe.
Early 20th century
The automotive industry
began modestly in the late-19th century, but grew rapidly following the
development of large-scale gasoline production in the early 20th
century.
Post-World War II
The relatively stable period of rebuilding after World War II led to new technologies (some of which were spin-offs from the war years) and new businesses.
Computers
The new technology of computers spread worldwide in the post war years. Businesses built around computer technology include: IBM, Microsoft, Apple Inc., Samsung, and Intel.
The
social consequences of the concentration of economic power in the hands
of those persons controlling "big business" has been a constant concern
both of economists and of politicians since the end of the 19th
century. Various attempts have been made to investigate the effects of
"bigness" upon labor, consumers, and investors, as well as upon prices
and competition. "Big business" has been accused of a wide variety of
misdeeds that range from the exploitation of the working class to the corruption of politicians and the fomenting of war.
Influence over government
Corporate concentration can lead to influence over government in
areas such as tax policy, trade policy, environmental policy, foreign
policy, and labor policy through lobbying. In 2005, the majority of Americans believed that big business has "too much power in Washington."
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (alternatively, "There is no such thing as a free lunch" or other variants) is a popular adage communicating the idea that it is impossible to get something for nothing. The acronymsTANSTAAFL, TINSTAAFL, and TNSTAAFL are also used. The phrase was in use by the 1930s, but its first appearance is unknown.
Epictetus in his Enchiridion (maxim Nr. XVIII) states “… nothing is
acquired for free, and necessarily must cost us some thing”. The "free
lunch" in the saying refers to the formerly common practice in American
bars of offering a "free lunch" in order to entice drinking customers.
The "free lunch" refers to the once-common tradition of saloons in the United States providing a "free" lunch
to patrons who had purchased at least one drink. Many foods on offer
were high in salt (e.g., ham, cheese, and salted crackers), so those who
ate them ended up buying a lot of beer. Rudyard Kipling, writing in 1891, noted how he
...came upon a bar-room full of bad Salon pictures, in
which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a
counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You
paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something
less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San
Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are
stranded in these parts.
TANSTAAFL, on the other hand, indicates an acknowledgement that in
reality a person or a society cannot get "something for nothing". Even
if something appears to be free, there is always a cost to the person or
to society as a whole, although that may be a hidden cost or an externality.
For example, as Heinlein has one of his characters point out, a bar
offering a free lunch will likely charge more for its drinks.
Early uses
TANSTAAFL: a plan for a new economic world order. (Pierre Dos Utt, 1949)
According to Robert Caro, Fiorello La Guardia, on becoming mayor of New York in 1933, said "È finita la cuccagna!", meaning "Cockaigne is finished" or, more loosely, "No more free lunch"; in this context "free lunch" refers to graft and corruption.
The earliest known occurrence of the full phrase (except for the "a"),
in the form "There ain't no such thing as free lunch", appears as the
punchline of a joke related in an article in the El Paso Herald-Post of June 27, 1938 (and other Scripps-Howard newspapers about the same time), entitled "Economics in Eight Words".
In 1945, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" appeared in the Columbia Law Review, and "there is no free lunch" appeared in a 1942 article in the Oelwein Daily Register (in a quote attributed to economist Harley L. Lutz) and in a 1947 column by economist Merryle S. Rukeyser.
In 1949, the phrase appeared in an article by Walter Morrow in the San Francisco News (published on 1 June) and in Pierre Dos Utt's monographTANSTAAFL: A Plan for a New Economic World Order, which describes an oligarchic political system based on his conclusions from "no free lunch" principles.
The 1938 and 1949 sources use the phrase in relating a fable about a king (Nebuchadnezzar
in Dos Utt's retelling) seeking advice from his economic advisors.
Morrow's retelling, which claims to derive from an earlier editorial
reported to be non-existent, but closely follows the story as related in the earlier article in the El Paso Herald-Post,
differs from Dos Utt's in that the ruler asks for ever-simplified
advice following their original "eighty-seven volumes of six hundred
pages" as opposed to a simple failure to agree on "any major remedy".
The last surviving economist advises that "There ain't no such thing as
free lunch."
In 1950, a New York Times columnist ascribed the phrase to economist (and army general) Leonard P. Ayres
of the Cleveland Trust Company: "It seems that shortly before the
General's death [in 1946]... a group of reporters approached the general
with the request that perhaps he might give them one of several
immutable economic truisms that he had gathered from his long years of
economic study... 'It is an immutable economic fact,' said the general,
'that there is no such thing as a free lunch.'"
The September 8, 1961, issue of LIFE magazine has an
editorial on page 4, "'TANSTAFL,' It's the Truth," that closes with an
anecdotal farmer explaining this slight variant of TANSTAAFL.
Edwin G. Dolan used the phrase as the title of his 1971 book TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) – A Libertarian Perspective on Environmental Policy.
Meanings
Science
In the sciences, TANSTAAFL means that the universe as a whole is ultimately a closed system.
There is no source of matter, energy, or light that draws resources
from something else which will not eventually be exhausted. Therefore,
the TANSTAAFL argument may also be applied to natural physical processes
in a closed system (either the universe as a whole, or any system that
does not receive energy or matter from outside). The bio-ecologist Barry Commoner used this concept as the last of his famous "Four Laws of Ecology".
According to American theoretical physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth
"the universe is the ultimate free lunch", given that in the early
stage of its expansion the total amount of energy available to make
particles was very large.
Economics
In economics, TANSTAAFL demonstrates opportunity cost. Greg Mankiw
described the concept as follows: "To get one thing that we like, we
usually have to give up another thing that we like. Making decisions
requires trading off one goal against another."
The idea that there is no free lunch at the societal level applies only
when all resources are being used completely and appropriately – i.e.,
when economic efficiency prevails. If not, a 'free lunch' can be had through a more efficient utilization of resources. Or, as Fred Brooks
put it, "You can only get something for nothing if you have previously
gotten nothing for something." If one individual or group gets
something at no cost, somebody else ends up paying for it. If there
appears to be no direct cost to any single individual, there is a social cost. Similarly, someone can benefit for "free" from an externality or from a public good, but someone has to pay the cost of producing these benefits.
Finance
In mathematical finance, the term is also used as an informal synonym for the principle of no-arbitrage.
This principle states that a combination of securities that has the
same cash-flows as another security must have the same net price in
equilibrium.
Statistics
In statistics, the term has been used to describe the tradeoffs of statistical learners (e.g., in machine learning) which are unavoidable according to the "No free lunch" theorem.
That is, any model that claims to offer superior flexibility in
analyzing data patterns usually does so at the cost of introducing extra
assumptions, or by sacrificing generalizability in important
situations.
Technology
TANSTAAFL is sometimes used as a response to claims of the virtues of free software.
Supporters of free software often counter that the use of the term
"free" in this context is primarily a reference to a lack of constraint
("libre") rather than a lack of cost ("gratis"). Richard Stallman has described it as "'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'".
The prefix "TANSTAA-" (or "TINSTAA-") is used in numerous other
contexts as well to denote some immutable property of the system being
discussed. For example, "TANSTAANFS" is used by electrical engineering professors to stand for "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Noise-Free System".
Sports
Baseball Prospectus coined the abbreviation "TINSTAAPP", for "There Is No Such Thing As A Pitching Prospect", as many young pitchers hurt their arms before they can be effective at a major league level.
Social policy
Hungarian prime minister Ferenc Gyurcsány
used this adage to justify his social reforms in the mid-2000s. As a
post-socialist country, Hungary struggled with the illusion of the state
as a caring and giving, independent entity, rather than being the
embodiment of the community. The saying "there is no free lunch"
represented that even if the state provides welfare or something else
for the people in need, it is in fact bought or provided by other people
of the same community through taxes. Therefore, the state cannot
provide everything for everyone, and increased provisions given by the
state can only be financed by economic growth or increased taxes or
public debt.
Exceptions
Some exceptions from the "no free lunch" tenet have been put forward, such as the Sun and carbon dioxide. It was argued in particular that metabolism evolved to take advantage of the free lunch provided by the Sun, which also triggers production of vital oxygen in plants. However, these too fall short in that the viewpoint is an open system,
Earth, with "free" inputs from the Sun. When viewed from the larger
system context, the Sun/Earth or Solar System, there is a net energy
exchange, and still "no free lunch".
Chewing tobacco is a type of smokeless tobaccoproduct consumed by placing a portion of the tobacco between the cheek and gum or upper lip and teeth, and then chewing. Unlike dipping tobacco, it is not ground and must be manually crushed with the teeth to release flavour and nicotine. Unwanted juices are then spat.
Chewing tobacco is typically manufactured as several varieties of
product – most often as loose leaf (or scrap), pellets (tobacco "bites"
or "bits"), and "plug" (a form of loose-leaf tobacco condensed with a
binding sweetener). Nearly all modern chewing tobaccos are produced by a
process of leaf curing, cutting, fermentation, and processing or
sweetening. Historically, many American chewing-tobacco brands (which
were popular during the American Civil War era) were made with cigar clippings.
Health issues
Oral and spit tobacco increase the risk for leukoplakia, a precursor to oral cancer. Chewing tobacco has been known to cause cancer, particularly of the mouth and throat. According to International Agency for Research on Cancer,
"Some health scientists have suggested that smokeless tobacco should be
used in smoking cessation programs and have made implicit or explicit
claims that its use would partly reduce the exposure of smokers to
carcinogens and the risk for cancer. These claims, however, are not
supported by the available evidence.
History
Historical advertisement of Grimm & Triepel Kruse chewing tobacco (1895)
Chewing is one of the oldest methods of consuming tobacco. Indigenous peoples of the Americas
in both North and South America chewed the leaves of the plant long
before the arrival of Europeans, frequently mixed with the mineral lime, in the same way as coca leaves.
The Southern United States was distinctive for their production
of tobacco, which earned premium prices from around the world. Most
farmers grew a little for their own use, or traded with neighbors who
grew it. Commercial sales became important in the late 19th century, as
major tobacco companies rose in the South, becoming one of the largest
employers in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Durham, North Carolina, and Richmond, Virginia. Southerners dominated the tobacco industry in the United States; even a concern as large as the Helme Tobacco Company, headquartered in New Jersey, was headed by former Confederate officer George Washington Helme. In 1938, R.J. Reynolds marketed 84 brands of chewing tobacco, 12 brands of smoking tobacco, and the top-selling Camel brand of cigarettes. Reynolds sold large quantities of chewing tobacco, even though that market peaked around 1910.
A historian of the American South in the late 1860s reported on
typical usage in the region where it was grown, paying close attention
to class and gender:
The chewing of tobacco was
well-nigh universal. This habit had been widespread among the
agricultural population of America both North and South before the war.
Soldiers had found the quid a solace in the field and continued to
revolve it in their mouths upon returning to their homes. Out of doors
where his life was principally led the chewer spat upon his lands
without offence to other men, and his homes and public buildings were
supplied with spittoons. Brown and yellow parabolas were projected to
right and left toward these receivers, but very often without the
careful aim which made for cleanly living. Even the pews of fashionable
churches were likely to contain these familiar conveniences. The large
numbers of Southern men, and these were of the better class (officers in
the Confederate army and planters, worth $20,000 or more, and barred
from general amnesty) who presented themselves for the pardon of
President Johnson, while they sat awaiting his pleasure in the ante-room
at the White House, covered its floor with pools and rivulets of their
spittle. An observant traveller in the South in 1865 said that in his
belief seven-tenths of all persons above the age of twelve years, both
male and female, used tobacco in some form. Women could be seen at the
doors of their cabins in their bare feet, in their dirty one-piece
cotton garments, their chairs tipped back, smoking pipes made of corn
cobs into which were fitted reed stems or goose quills. Boys of eight or
nine years of age and half-grown girls smoked. Women and girls "dipped"
in their houses, on their porches, in the public parlours of hotels and
in the streets.
Chewing tobacco is still used, predominantly by young males in some
parts of the American Southeast, but also in other areas and age groups.
In September 2006, both the Republican and Democratic candidates for
Senator from Virginia admitted to chewing tobacco and agreed that it
sets a bad example for children.
In the late 19th century, during the peak in popularity of chewing tobacco in the Western United States, a device known as the spittoon was a ubiquitous feature throughout places both private and public (e.g. parlors and passenger cars).
The purpose of the spittoon was to provide a receptacle for excess
juices and spittle accumulated from the oral use of tobacco. As chewing
tobacco's popularity declined throughout the years, the spittoon became
merely a relic of the Old West and is rarely seen outside museums.
Spittoons are still present on the floor of the U.S. Senate's old chamber, honored as tradition.
Types
Chewing tobacco is sold in several different varieties.
Loose-leaf
Loose-leaf
chewing tobacco is the most widely available and most frequently used
type of chewing tobacco. It consists of shredded tobacco leaf, usually
sweetened and sometimes flavored, and often sold in a sealed pouch
typically weighing 3 oz. Loose-leaf chewing tobacco has a sticky
texture due to the sweeteners added. Common loose-leaf chewing tobacco
brands include Red Man, Levi Garrett, Beechnut, and Stoker's.
Dip
Dip tobaccos
are finely shredded tobacco leaf, sometimes sweetened and usually
flavored, sold in 1.2-oz cans. Due to fine size of the shred, dipping
tobaccos are cut into fine bits to almost grainy in texture. In
addition, the nicotine is significantly higher than loose-leaf chewing
tobacco. The can usually has to be "packed" to have the tobacco stick
together so it can be easily consumed. The variety of flavors include
natural, wintergreen, mint, and some fruity flavors. Common dipping
tobacco brands include Copenhagen, Skoal, and Grizzly. The cans are sold individually or in logs of five cans.
Plug
A selection of plug chewing tobaccos from the United States
Plug chewing tobacco is tobacco leaves pressed into a square,
brick-like mass called a plug. From this, pieces are bitten off or cut
from the plug and then chewed. Plug tobacco is declining in popularity,
thus less readily available than loose-leaf chewing tobacco.
Historically, plug tobacco could be either smoked in a pipe or chewed,
but today, these are two distinct products.
Twist
Twist
chewing tobacco is a rope-like piece of tobacco twisted together.
Unlike most loose-leaf tobaccos, twist chewing tobacco is usually not
sweetened. Pieces of twist are either bitten off or cut, and then
chewed. Twist chewing tobacco is not widely available and is mostly
found in Appalachia. Historically, twists could also be smoked in a pipe, or ground up into nasal snuff.
Chew bags
Chew
bags are traditionally cut tobacco in a small bag containing between
0.5 and 1.0 gram each. Chew bags are used in much the same way as other
chewing tobaccos, although they have the appearance of snus
portions. Chew bags are defined by European Commission, European
Binding Tariff Information (EBTI), as cut or fine cut tobacco flakes
(1–2 mm wide and 2–6 mm long) packed in sachets. By varying the sachet
between the upper lip and by chewing, the consumer controls the release
of flavor or nicotine.
Chewing tobacco and baseball
When the rules of baseball
were first written in 1845, the carcinogenic potential of chewing
tobacco was unknown. At that time, it was commonly used by players and
coaches alike.
Smokeless tobacco use became rampant by players by the early 1900s. The
use of chewing tobacco in baseball steadily increased until the
mid-20th century, when cigarettes became popular and took the place of
some players' smokeless tobacco habit. Today, however, more baseball
players are actually using dipping tobacco, not chewing tobacco.
Notable players affected by chewing tobacco
As shown below, a number of notable players have died of oral cancer as a result. Joe Garagiola, who quit, warns about chewing tobacco:
"I tell these guys, 'You may not like what I say, but with lung cancer you die of lung cancer,'"
... "With oral cancer, you die one piece at a time. They operate on
your neck, they operate on your jaw, they operate on your throat."
Bill Tuttle
was a Major League player who made a big name for himself both through
baseball and his antichewing-tobacco efforts. Tuttle was an outfielder
for the Detroit Tigers, Kansas City Athletics, and Minnesota Twins. He was an avid tobacco chewer; even his baseball cards
pictured him with a bulge in his cheek from the tobacco. Nearly 40
years after he began using smokeless tobacco, Tuttle developed a tumor
in his mouth so severe, it protruded through his skin. A few years
before he died, Tuttle had many of his teeth, his jawbone, his gums, and
his right cheekbone removed. He also had his taste buds removed.
Tuttle dedicated the last years of his life to speaking with Major
League teams about not using chewing tobacco where television cameras
could see the players so that children could not witness and be
influenced by it. He also dedicated time to the National Spit Tobacco
Education Program, which was being run by friend and former Major League
player, Joe Garagiola. Tuttle died July 27, 1998, after a 5-year battle
with cancer.
Babe Ruth, perhaps the most famous player of all time, also died of throat cancer. In the mid-1940s, Ruth was diagnosed with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (cancer of the upper throat). The top two causes of this disease are alcohol and tobacco; Ruth was a heavy user of both.
Rex Barney, who began his career at age 19 pitching for the Brooklyn Dodgers,
later recounted that his coach told him he had to begin chewing tobacco
if he ever wanted to be a Major League pitcher. Barney contracted a
sickness from chewing and was unable to play in the first game in which
he was supposed to start.
Hall of Fame outfielder Tony Gwynn died of salivary cancer on June 16, 2014. He claimed the cancer was linked to his lifetime use of chewing and dipping tobacco.
Timeline
1845: Baseball rules written, chewing tobacco use among players already rampant.
1890: Dr. Robert Koch
shows that the spitting of chewing tobacco was leading to a spread of
tuberculosis. This leads to a downturn in use of chewing tobacco among
the general population, but baseball players continue use.
1909:Honus Wagner, a well-known American baseball player, tells American Tobacco Company to take his picture off of their cartons. He does not want to be responsible for influencing children to smoke.
1948: Babe Ruth dies of throat cancer at age 53.
1950s: Use of smokeless tobacco decreases as players make the switch to cigarettes.
1970: Players' use of smokeless tobacco increases once again
when the U.S. Government begins to warn against the potential risks of
smoking.
1984: Sean Marsee, who won 28 track medals at Talihina High
school, in Talihina, Oklahoma, dies of oral cancer at the age of 19
after dipping Copenhagen snuff for six years since age 12.
1986: Betty Ann Marsee, mother of the late Sean Marsee, lost
her lawsuit in Federal court on June 20, 1986, against the United States
Tobacco Company for $137 million plus $10 million for pain and
suffering. Ms. Marsee testified during the trial her son believed snuff
was safe because it carried no warning label, and because athletes like
former Dallas Cowboy running back Walt Garrison advertised it. Dr. Carl
Hook, who treated Marsee in the early stages of the disease, testified
that the teenager's oral cancer was caused by snuff.
1989: Betty Ann Marsee, mother of the late Sean Marsee, loses
her appeal in the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, on
January 10, 1989.
1993:Minor League players, coaches, and staff prohibited from smokeless tobacco use during games.
1998: Bill Tuttle, anti-chewing-tobacco spokesperson and
former MLB player, dies at the age of 69 after a five-year battle with
cancer.
2010:San Diego Padres HOFer Tony Gwynn is diagnosed with cancer of a salivary gland which he says is due to him still using chew. Gwynn died of the disease in 2014.
2011: New five-year labor deal prevents the use of smokeless
tobacco during pre and post-game interviews. However does not ban the
use during games as long as the can or pouch is out of sight.
2016: A new collective bargaining agreement prohibits all new Major League Baseball players from using smokeless tobacco.
Effects
Baseball players' use effect on youth
Debate exists over whether players should be banned from using tobacco products during the games. The Major League Baseball Players Association disagrees, claiming it is a legal substance, so is acceptable to be used during games. Harvard School of Public Health professor Gregory Connolly,
however, says, "the use of smokeless tobacco by players has a powerful
role-model effect on youth, particularly among young males in sport,
some of whom remain addicted in future careers as professional
athletes."
According to Connolly, one-quarter of Minor League players do not
support allowing the use of chewing tobacco during games, and one-third
of Major League players support abolishing it. Due to health concerns, the MLB was asked to ban the use of chewing tobacco during the 2011 World Series between the St. Louis Cardinals and Texas Rangers.
Statistics
Many
believe that the widespread use of chewing tobacco by baseball players
has led to a rampant increase in youth, and particularly teen, use.
Additionally, teen use of smokeless tobacco has increased, while use of
all tobacco products by teens has decreased. This is true especially
among white and Hispanic males.
In 1970, five times as many 65-and-older males used smokeless tobacco
as 18- to 24-year-olds did (12.7% of the population were 65+ male users,
2.2% of the population were 18–24 male users). More specifically, moist
snuff use increased for males ages 18–24 from 1% of the population to
6.2% of the population, while 65+ male users decreased from 4% to 2.2%.
A 2009 survey by The U.S. Centers for Disease Control revealed
that 8.9% of U.S. high-school students had used smokeless tobacco on at
least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey.
Usage was more common among males (15.0%) than females (2.2%) and among
Whites (11.9%) than Blacks (3.3%) or Hispanics (5.1%). The five states
with the highest percentage of high-school users were Wyoming (16.2%),
North Dakota (15.3%), South Dakota (14.6%), Montana (14.6%), and West
Virginia (14.4%).
Since 1964, conclusive medical evidence of the deadly effects of
tobacco consumption has led to a sharp decline in official support for
producers and manufacturers of tobacco, although it contributes to the
agricultural, fiscal, manufacturing, and exporting sectors of the
economy. Policy and law restricting tobacco smoking
has increased globally, but almost 6 trillion cigarettes are still
produced each year, representing an increase of over 12% since the year
2000. Tobacco is often heavily taxed to gain revenues for governments and as an incentive for people not to smoke.
Position of industry
The phrase "tobacco industry" generally refers to the companies involved in the manufacture of cigarettes, cigars, snuff, chewing tobacco and pipe tobacco. China National Tobacco Co.
has become the largest tobacco company in the world by volume.
Following extensive merger and acquisition activity in the 1990s and
2000s as well as the spinoff of Altria's international tobacco holdings as Philip Morris International in 2008, four firms dominate international markets - in alphabetical order:
Altria, still owns the Philip Morris tobacco business in the United
States, but Philip Morris International has been fully independent since
2008. In most countries these companies either have long-established
dominance, or have purchased the major domestic producer or producers
(often a former state monopoly). Until 2014 the United States had one other substantial independent firm, Lorillard, which Reynolds American, Inc. acquired. India has its own major player, ITC Limited (25.4%-owned by British American Tobacco). A small number of state monopolies survive, as well as some small independent firms.
Tobacco advertising
is becoming increasingly restricted by the governments of countries
around the world citing health issues as a reason to restrict tobaccos
appeal
Industry outlook in the United States
Anti-smoking ad, 1905.
The tobacco industry in the United States has suffered greatly since
the mid-1990s, when it was successfully sued by several U.S. states. The
suits claimed that tobacco causes cancer, that companies in the
industry knew this, and that they deliberately understated the
significance of their findings, contributing to the illness and death of
many citizens in those states.
The suit resulted in a large cash settlement
being paid by a group of tobacco companies to the states that sued.
Further, since the suit was settled, other individuals have come forth,
in class actionlawsuits, claiming individual damages. New suits of this nature will probably continue for a long time.
Since the settlement is a heavy tax on the profits of the tobacco
industry in the US, regressive against smokers, and further settlements
being made only add to the financial burden of these companies, it is
debatable if the industry has a money-producing long term outlook.
The tobacco industry has historically been largely successful in
this litigation process, with the majority of cases being won by the
industry. During the first 42 years of tobacco litigation (between 1954
and 1996) the industry maintained a clean record in litigation thanks to tactics described in a R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company internal memo as "the way we won these cases, to paraphrase Gen. Patton, is not by spending all of Reynolds' money, but by making the other son of a bitch spend all of his." Between 1995 and 2005 only 59% of cases were won by the tobacco industry either outright or on appeal in the US,
but the continued success of the industry's efforts to win these cases
is questionable. In Florida, the industry has lost 77 of the 116 "Engle
progeny" cases that have gone to trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has
also denied the industry's major grounds for appeal of Engle cases.
In June 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act which has been called a "sweeping anti-smoking" bill.
Among other restrictions, this Act banned the use of any constituent,
additive, herb or spice that adds a "characterizing flavor" to the
tobacco product or smoke (Section 907)(a)(1)(A). The aim of this ban is to prevent children and teenagers from becoming addicted to cigarettes at a young age with the US Department of Health and Human Services citing that "studies have shown that 17 year old
smokers are three times as likely to use flavored cigarettes as are smokers over the age of 25". This ban however does not apply to menthol cigarettes, which are exempt from the bill.
Lawsuits against the tobacco industry are primarily restricted to
the United States due to differences in legal systems in other
countries. Many businesses class ongoing lawsuits as a cost of doing
business in the US and feel their revenue will be only marginally
affected by the activities.
Large tobacco companies have entered the electronic cigarette market by either buying some of the small e-cigarette companies or by starting their own e-cigarette companies.By 2014 all the major multinational tobacco companies had entered the e-cigarette market. They did so either by buying existing e-cigarette companies (including Ruyan, the original Chinese e-cigarette company, which was bought by Imperial Tobacco) or by developing their own products. A 2017 review states, "The tobacco industry dominates the e-cigarette market." All of the large tobacco companies are selling e-cigarettes.
A 2017 review states, "Small companies initially dominated the
electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) market, and these firms had
no links to the tobacco industry. Today, however, all transnational
tobacco companies sell these products. Increased concentration of the
ENDS market in the hands of the transnational tobacco companies is
concerning to the public health community, given the industry's legacy
of obfuscating many fundamental truths about their products and
misleading the public with false claims, including that low-tar and
so-called "light" cigarettes would reduce the harms associated with
smoking. Although industry representatives are claiming interest in ENDS
because of their harm-reduction potential, many observers believe that
profit remains the dominant motivation."
Major tobacco companies are dominating the political and
policy-making environments just as they have in conventional cigarette
policy making.
As they have done to influence tobacco control policies for
conventional cigarettes, the large companies often try to stay out of
sight and work through third parties that can obscure their links to the
tobacco industry.
The one difference from the historical pattern of industry efforts to
shape tobacco policy from behind the scenes is that there are also
genuine independent sellers of e-cigarettes and associated users
(so-called vape shops) who are not necessarily being directed by the
cigarette companies.
These smaller operators are, however, losing market share to the big
tobacco companies, and the real political power is now being exercised
by the cigarette companies.
The cigarette companies try to take advantage of the existence of
independent players while acting through the industry's traditional
allies and front groups.
Tobacco control
On May 11, 2004, the U.S. became the 108th country to sign the World Health Organization's Global Treaty on Tobacco Control.
This treaty places broad restrictions on the sale, advertising,
shipment, and taxation of tobacco products. The U.S. has not yet
ratified this treaty in its Senate and does not yet have a schedule for doing so.
Most recently, there has been discussion within the tobacco
control community of transforming the tobacco industry through the
replacement of tobacco corporations
by other types of business organizations that can be established to
provide tobacco to the market while not attempting to increase market
demand.
On February 20, 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Altria Group
(formerly Philip Morris) did not have to pay $79.5 million in punitive
damages awarded to Mayola Williams in a 1999 Oregon court ruling, when
she sued Phillip Morris for responsibility in the cancer death of her
husband, Jesse Williams. The Supreme Court's decision overturns a ruling made by the Oregon Supreme Court that upheld the award.
On April 3, 2008, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit threw out an $800 billion class-action lawsuit filed on behalf
of a group or class of people who smoked light cigarettes. The
plaintiffs' lawyers were confident that they would be able to win this
suit due to the success of Schwab v. Philip Morris wherein tobacco companies were found guilty of fraud-like charges
because they were selling the idea that light cigarettes were safer than
regular cigarettes. The ruling by the three-judge panel will not allow
the suit to be pursued as a class, but instead need proof for why
individual smokers chose light cigarettes over regular cigarettes.
Much
of global tobacco production is used in the manufacturing of
cigarettes. The following is a chart compiled by Dr. Robert Proctor
detailing the largest cigarette factories, accompanied by their
estimated annual death toll due to the harms of cigarettes to health.
In popular culture
The
tobacco industry has had a long relationship with the entertainment
industry. In silent era movies, back-lit smoke was often used by
filmmakers to create sense of mystery and sensuality in a scene. Later,
cigarettes were deliberately placed in the hands of Hollywood stars as
an early phase of product placement,
until health regulating bodies tightened rules on tobacco advertisement
and anti-smoking groups pressured actors and studio executives against
such tactics. Big Tobacco has since been the subject focus of films such as the docudramaThe Insider (1999) and Thank You For Smoking (2005).
In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost
of an activity or option is the loss of value or benefit that would be
incurred (the cost) by engaging in that activity or choosing that
option, versus/relative to engaging in the alternative activity or
choosing the alternative option that would offer the highest return in
value or benefit (the best forgone opportunity).
In basic equation form, opportunity cost can be defined as:
Opportunity Cost = FO (returns on best forgone option) − CO (returns on chosen option)
Directly or indirectly, opportunity cost underpins the majority of day-to-day economic decisions that are made in society. For example, the opportunity cost of mowing one’s own lawn for a doctor or a lawyer (who might otherwise make $100 an hour if they elected to work overtime during that time instead) would be higher than for a minimum-wage employee (who in the United States might earn $7.25 an hour), which would make the former more likely to hire someone else to mow their lawn for them.
As a representation of the relationship between scarcity and choice, the objective of opportunity cost is to ensure efficient use of scarce resources. It incorporates all associated costs of a decision, both explicit and implicit.
Opportunity cost also includes the utility or economic benefit an
individual lost, if it is indeed more than the monetary payment or
actions taken. As an example, to go for a walk may not have any
financial costs imbedded in to it. Yet, the opportunity forgone is the
time spent walking which could have been used instead for other purposes
such as earning an income.
However time spent chasing after an income might have health problems like in presenteeism where instead of taking a sick day one avoids it for a salary or to be seen as being active.
A production possibility frontier shows the maximum combination
of factors that can be produced. For example if services were on the x
axis of a graph and there were to be an increase in services from 20 to
25, this would lead to an opportunity cost for the goods that are on the
y axis, as they would drop from 21 to 16. This means that as a result
of the increase in consumption of services, the opportunity cost would
be those 5 goods that have decreased.
Regardless of the time of occurrence of an activity, if scarcity
was non-existent then all demands of a person are satiated. It’s only
through scarcity that choice becomes essential, since the use of scarce
resources in one way prevents its use in another way, resulting in the
need to make a selection and/or decision.
Sacrifice is a given measurement in opportunity cost of which the
decision maker forgoes the opportunity of the next best alternative.
In other words, to disregard the equivalent utility of the best
alternative choice to gain the utility of the best perceived option.
If there were decisions to be made that require no sacrifice then these
would be cost free decisions with zero opportunity cost.
Only through the analysis of opportunity cost, the company can choose
the most beneficial project, based on when the actual benefits are
greater than the opportunity cost, so that the limited resources can be
optimally allocated to achieve maximum efficiency.
Types of opportunity costs
Explicit costs
Explicit costs
are the direct costs of an action (business operating costs or
expenses), executed either through a cash transaction or a physical
transfer of resources. In other words, explicit opportunity costs are the out-of-pocket costs of a firm, that are easily identifiable. This means explicit costs will always have a dollar value and involve a transfer of money, e.g. paying employees.
With this said, these particular costs can easily be identified under
the expenses of a firm's income statement and balance sheet to represent
all the cash outflows of a firm.
Examples are as follows:
Land and infrastructure costs
Operation and maintenance costs—wages, rent, overhead, materials
Scenarios are as follows:
If a person leaves work for an hour and spends $200 on office
supplies, then the explicit costs for the individual equates to the
total expenses for the office supplies of $200.
If a printer of a company malfunctions, then the explicit costs for
the company equates to the total amount to be paid to the repair
technician.
Implicit costs
Implicit costs
(also referred to as implied, imputed or notional costs) are the
opportunity costs of utilising resources owned by the firm that could be
used for other purposes. These costs are often hidden to the naked eye
and aren’t made known.
Unlike explicit costs, implicit opportunity costs correspond to
intangibles. Hence, they cannot be clearly identified, defined or
reported. This means that they are costs that have already occurred within a project, without exchanging cash.
This could include a small business owner not taking any salary in the
beginning of their tenure as a way for the business to be more
profitable. As implicit costs are the result of assets, they are also
not recorded for the use of accounting purposes because they do not
represent any monetary losses or gains.
In terms of factors of production, implicit opportunity costs allow for
depreciation of goods, materials and equipment that ensure the
operations of a company.
Examples of implicit costs regarding production are mainly resources contributed by a business owner which includes:
Human labour
Infrastructure
Time
Scenarios are as follows:
If a person leaves work for an hour to spend $200 on office
supplies, and has an hourly rate of $25, then the implicit costs for the
individual equates to the $25 that he/she could have earned instead.
If a printer of a company malfunctions, the implicit cost equates to
the total production time that could have been utilized if the machine
did not break down.
Excluded from opportunity cost
Sunk costs
Sunk costs (also referred to as historical costs) are costs that have
been incurred already and cannot be recovered. As sunk costs have
already incurred, they remain unchanged and should not influence present
or future actions or decisions regarding benefits and costs.
Decision makers who recognise the insignificance of sunk costs then
understand that the "consequences of choices cannot influence choice
itself".
From the traceability source of costs, sunk costs can be direct
costs or indirect costs. If the sunk cost can be summarized as a single
component, it is a direct cost; if it is caused by several products or
departments, it is an indirect cost.
Analyzing from the composition of costs, sunk costs can be either
fixed costs or variable costs. When a company abandons a certain
component or stops processing a certain product, the sunk cost usually
includes fixed costs such as rent for equipment and wages, but it also
includes variable costs due to changes in time or materials. Usually,
fixed costs are more likely to constitute sunk costs.
Generally speaking, the stronger the liquidity, versatility, and compatibility of the asset, the less its sunk cost will be.
A scenario is given below:
A company used $5,000 for marketing and advertising on its music
streaming service to increase exposure to target market and potential
consumers. In the end, the campaign proved unsuccessful. The sunk cost
for the company equates to the $5,000 that was spent on the market and
advertising means. This expense is to be ignored by the company in its
future decisions, and highlights that no additional investment should be
made.
Despite the fact that sunk costs should be ignored when making
future decisions, people sometimes make the mistake of thinking sunk
cost matters. This is sunk cost fallacy.
Non-monetary cost
Seeking a certain profit might have implicit costs such as health,
ecological, or other costs. Many of those costs may not be paid directly
or immediately after; they may also not be paid by those responsible
for the costs. For example, if a company pollutes, the company's
accountants may not be responsible for the costs, but the costs may be
externalized onto other people in the case of local pollution, or the
entire population, in the case of global warming.
Smoking may personally have higher direct costs, such as health
costs; it may also generate direct losses economically or increase the
prevalence of health problems which could harm the economy. The tobacco
industry generates losses for many sectors, however, for the tobacco industry
no cost may be paid. Quitting smoking may reduce hidden costs—choosing
to take a walk instead of smoking could be beneficial to one's health,
for example. Choosing to work half-time may allow for more rest for a
sick person.
Externalities are a kind of cost generated from one economic
agent to another. For example, the restaurant sector may be growing but
obesity may generate a cost, monetary or otherwise in many domains, such
as an increased difficulty in recruiting fit firefighters. Some sectors
are growing extensively from such costs, private or not. Dentists are
needed partly because both sugary foods and tobacco generate work and
demand.
Plane travel may generate externalities by contributing to global
warming and air pollution, which harms many sectors such as agriculture
and nature tourism. Short-term profit may lead to high costs later.
Refusing to invest in infrastructure or maintenance for a company may
lead to a loss of customers.
The development of tourism has driven the local consumption
industry and a series of related economic growths. At the same time, it
can lead to excessive development and utilization of tourism resources,
serious environmental damage, and a large number of negative impacts
affecting the lives of local people. Overcrowding on holidays may lead
to a poor experience and a loss of tourists.
Use in economics
Economic profit vs. accounting profit
Opportunity costs are typically associated with ‘economic profit’ as opposed to 'accounting profit',
which it is seldom considered. Although being quite similar, both types
of profit have different principles and objectives in mind, the key
difference being the opportunity cost.
Accounting profits are the ‘real costs’ (in terms of real
monetary value) of businesses which are included on balance sheets, cash
flow statements, and income statements but do not include implicit
costs which opportunity costs take into account.
The main objective of accounting profits is to give an account of a
company’s fiscal performance, typically reported on in quarters and
annually. As such, accounting principles focus on tangible and
measurable factors associated with operating a business such as wages
and rent, and thus, do not “…infer anything about relative economic profitability.” Opportunity costs are not considered in accounting profits as they have no purpose in this regard.
The purpose of calculating economic profits (and thus, opportunity
costs) is to aid in better business decision-making through the
inclusion of opportunity costs. In this way, a business can evaluate
whether its decision and the allocation of its resources is
cost-effective or not, and whether resources should be reallocated. However, economic profits are not used to explicitly report real monetary gain. As such, it is more aligned with cost-benefit analysis
and its applications in determining business decisions and weighing
potential investments (e.g. Why a firm would choose to invest in Project
A over Project B). When making a cost-benefit analysis, business should
make its decision based on if it makes a positive economic profit,
which suggests that the payoff of the chosen option is better than the
opportunity cost (the next best alternative).
Simplified example of comparing economic profit vs accounting profit
The calculation behind both economic and accounting profits can be distinguished in a highly simplified fashion as follows:
Opportunity cost = Explicit Cost + Implicit Cost
Economic profit = Income - Opportunity Cost
Accounting profit = Income - Explicit Costs
It is important to note that economic profit does not indicate whether
or not a business decision will make money. It signifies if it is
prudent to undertake a specific decision against the opportunity of
undertaking a different decision. As shown in the simplified example in
the image, choosing to start a business would provide $10,000 in terms of accounting profits. However, the decision to start a business would provide -$30,000
in terms of economic profits, indicating that the decision to start a
business may not be prudent as the opportunity costs outweigh the profit
from starting a business. In this case, where the revenue is not enough
to cover the opportunity costs, the chosen option may not be the best
course of action.
When economic profit is zero, all the explicit and implicit costs
(opportunity costs) are covered by the total revenue and there is no
incentive for reallocation of the resources. This condition is known as normal profit.
Several performance measures of economic profit have been derived to further improve business decision-making such as risk-adjusted return on capital (RAROC) and economic value added (EVA), which directly include a quantified opportunity cost to aid businesses in risk management and optimal allocation of resources.
Opportunity cost, as such, is an economic concept in economic theory
which is used to maximise value through better decision-making.
Comparative advantage vs absolute advantage
When
a nation, organisation or individual can produce a product or service
at a relatively lower opportunity cost compared to its competitors, it
is said to have a comparative advantage.
In other words, a country has comparative advantage if it gives up less
of a resource to make the same number of products as the other country
that has to give up more.
A simple example of comparative advantage.
Using the simple example in the image, to make 100 tonnes of tea,
Country A has to give up the production of 20 tonnes of wool which means
for every 1 tonne of tea produced, 0.2 tonne of wool has to be forgone.
Meanwhile, to make 30 tonnes of tea, Country B needs to sacrifice the
production of 100 tonnes of wool, so for each tonne of tea, 3.3 tonnes
of wool is forgone. In this case, Country A has comparative advantage
over Country B for the production of tea because it has a lower
opportunity cost. On the other hand, to make 1 tonne of wool, Country A
has to give up 5 tonnes of tea, while Country B would need to give up
0.3 tonnes of tea, so Country B has comparative advantage over the
production of wool.
Absolute advantage
on the other hand refers to how efficiently a party can use its
resources to produce goods and services compared to others, regardless
of its opportunity costs. For example, if Country A can produce 1 tonne
of wool using less manpower compared to Country B, then it is more
efficient and has an absolute advantage over wool production, even if it
does not have comparative advantage because it has a higher opportunity
cost (5 tonnes of tea).
Absolute advantage refers to how efficiently resources are used
whereas comparative advantage refers to how little is sacrificed in
terms of opportunity cost. When a country produces what it has
comparative advantage of, even if it does not have absolute advantage,
and trades for those products it does not have comparative advantage
over, it maximises its output since the opportunity cost of its
production is lower than its competitors. By focusing on specialising this way, it also maximises its level of consumption.
Opportunity cost at governmental level
Much like individual decisions, it is often the case that governments
must consider opportunity cost when enacting legislation. Taking
universal basic healthcare as an example, the opportunity cost at
government level is quite clear. Assume that implementing basic
healthcare would cost a government $1 billion: the explicit opportunity
cost to implement such legislation would be a combined $1 billion that
could have been spent on education, housing, transport infrastructure,
environmental protection, or military defence, for example. For this
particular scenario, the implicit cost is quite minimal. Only the cost
on producing such legislation through human labour and the time of
production would need to be accounted for.
Opportunity cost to implement additional hijacking prevention methods
While the previous situation’s implicit cost may have been somewhat
negligible at a government level, this is not true for all scenarios.
Using hijacking prevention methods following the September 11 attacks as
an example, the additional burden of implicit costs is evident. To
implement more sophisticated airport security systems, the United States
government estimated the cost to be around $2 billion. An additional
$450 million would be spent to reinforce plane doors, along with an
extra $3 billion spent on sky marshals for all American flights to help
further prevent future hijackings from taking place. Under this
scenario, the explicit cost would be $5.45 billion. Implicit costs,
however, would far outweigh this. The US government has calculated that
by waiting an additional 30 minutes due to extra airport security,
multiplied by an average of 800 million passengers per year with the
average cost of time at $20 per hour, the total implicit cost to the US
economy from such prevention methods would be upwards of $8 billion.
Thus the importance of recognising the opportunity cost at a
governmental level is crucial in efficiently allocating government
funds.
