Meh - they'd just answer each question with what they've been saying all along, "We don't know...."
I'd rather hear this line of questioning:
Lawyer: Dr. Antz, you and the groups you receive funding from have publically opposed e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to smoking. Is that correct?
Dr. Antz: Yes, because we don't know if they are really a safe and effective way to quit smoking.
Lawyer: Dr. Antz, you were given funding by anti-smoking organizations, who themselves are funded by Big Pharma, to test e-cigarettes. Is that correct?
Dr. Antz: Yes we tested e-cigarettes, but I don't know where all of the funding comes from.
Lawyer: Right. So what, exactly, did you discover?
Dr. Antz: We discovered that e-cigarettes can leak and that the labels are sometimes inaccurate about the nicotine content. We also discovered that very little nicotine is delivered to the user via e-cigarettes, based on our method of having them use the unfamiliar, low-quality devices just like they would traditional cigarettes. And we discovered that there are other nicotine-related impurities found in the liquid. And don't forget that we found tobacco-specific nitrosamines, too.
Lawyer: Are those nicotine impurities or nitrosamines harmful to humans?
Dr. Antz: In the right amount they might be.
Lawyer: They "might" be harmful in the right amount? Did you find them to be "in the right amount" to be harmful?
Dr. Antz: Well...no....
Lawyer: Did you find any other impurities or toxins in the samples you tested?
Dr. Antz: Yes! We found diethylene glycol in one sample. That is highly toxic to humans and found in antifreeze!
Lawyer: Really!? Did you find the "right levels" of diethylene glycol to be toxic to humans and has it been found in any more samples?
Dr. Antz: (inaudible)
Lawyer: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.
Dr. Antz: No.
Lawyer: "No" to both. And since your group didn't report it, it's safe to assume that no other impurities or potentially dangerous levels of chemicals were found?
Dr. Antz: Not yet.
Lawyer: Alright, so, with all of the resources you have at your disposal, you've discovered a few leaky or mislabeled cartridges and some chemicals in amounts non-toxic and non-carcinogenic to humans. Would that be fair to say, Dr. Antz?
Dr. Antz: I guess you could look at it that way....
Lawyer: Yes or no, Doctor.
Dr. Antz: Yes.
Lawyer: One more question. The groups you represent - the ones who fund your research - have implied that e-cigarettes might contain dangerous chemicals and be just as dangerous as tobacco smoking....
Dr. Antz: We don't know...more research needs to be done...
Lawyer: Exactly, Doctor! So, tell the jury why you didn't do THAT research?? Since you just admitted that more research needs to be done, explain to the court, Doctor, why didn't you actually test e-cigarettes for dangerous levels of chemicals; or cancer-causing levels of chemicals; or compare the toxicity of e-cigarette vapor compared with cigarette smoke; or even interview the hundreds of thousands of former smokers - who have now been using e-cigarettes for a few years - to see if they are having any adverse reactions??
Dr. Antz: No, but....
Lawyer: In fact, you weren't even trying to discover if e-cigarettes are safe and effective, because even the good members of the jury can figure that out. All these tests were designed for is to scare customers away from e-cigarettes and back to Big Pharma products which pay for your research. Isn't that right, Dr. Antz??
Dr. Antz: Of course not!
Lawyer: I rest my case.