Assumptions about Consumers, Producers, and Regulators: What They Tell Us about Ourselves

Calfee and Ringold’s 1992 article “The Cigarette Advertising Controversy: Assumptions about Consumers, Regulation, and Scientific Debate” (Advances in Consumer Research) rejected the prevailing view that advertising is a powerful influence that consumers are ill prepared to resist, discussed the pervasive desire to supplant consumer judgments with those of regulators, and criticized the common substitution of ad hominem attacks for reasoned arguments. In this article, I argue that scientific inquiry in the public interest must begin with a genuine respect for human autonomy, an appreciation of the fallibility of scientists and scientific inquiry, an understanding of consumer competence, and cognizance of both market and regulatory failures. We should explicitly consider the net impact of regulatory means and ends, and judge one another's assumptions, arguments, and evidence on the merits. To do anything less is to diminish the integrity and relevance of scientific research necessary to formulate public policy that enhances general welfare.