This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Richard A. Daynard, JD, PhD
Northeastern University Boston, Mass

JAMA. 1995;273(7):522-523.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—I read the critique of the peer review process for tobacco control policy grants by Drs Glantz and Bero¹ with particular interest, having been the sole member of the California TRDRP Behavioral and Public Health Research on Tobacco Study Section whose primary expertise was in tobacco policy research. My experience from inside this peer review process fits precisely with the authors' external observations.

Most section members were behavioral researchers, with expertise in studying and modifying tobacco use behavior. This area of study and intervention constitutes less than half of current research and practice in tobacco control: the larger remainder includes studies of relevant tobacco industry and government behavior, innovative interventions, and the development and analysis of comprehensive government policies. To appreciate the range of concerns and methodologies reflected in state-of-the-art tobacco control work, one need only peruse any issue of Tobacco Control: An International Journal (including . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?