Have the tobacco companies conducted research on the amount of tar and nicotine people actually inhale while smoking light cigarettes?

Research results are only meaningful if the study is carrried out in an organised, logical, meaningful and repeatable manner. Lets say you were doing research into is chocolate good for you. If you ask children aged 4 to 9, the answer will be yes but it would not be a meaningful result. People have spent years researching pet projects hoping to prove a theory - Nazi's and their genetic theories as an example. Research also needs to be unbiased and open minded to avoid choosing results that match the answer.
=========================
seo | link building

Umm...the question was about something vastly simpler.
Try to stay on topic.

Maybe we shouldn't ask "(if maybe) tobacco company had done research on their product?", but rather (should) ask; "does tobacco company felt responsible for selling their product?". Clearly the question is about "tobacco company doing research", which is clearly (the research is) never for our benefit but only for the companies' benefit. -for example; (this is only an example) an electric car company may have been suggested by The Blind People Association to put sound in their car/product, to prevent accident (with blind people), but (according to the company); putting that sound require some research. I'm guessing the "research" would be about "how well the car would sell with that added sound", rather than how beneficial it is to the society... but maybe the benefit of the car company overlap with the benefit of the society... hence making the research (be) a valuable contribution to the society ,(to create the best sound that can be added to a car *and pleases evrybody*).

However, if it is regarding tobacco company or any other addictive substance company I doubt its research would benefit anyone. Addictive substance is simply addictive on its own, you don't need to improve anything to make it more favourable, you just don't remove the (addictive) thing itself. -But of course, if the (addictive) thing itself is causing harm, you can't do anything about it... the company exist for selling such substance... there's demand.

I'm strongly against research conducted by company that sell things that threaten our livelihood/our-happiness if they won't sell their product. The product itself is like a 'blackmail'; "you must buy it, or die". -a tobacco company that sells on tobacco and work hard to make it safe with filters and 'what sort of creative solution' (just) cannot stop selling the product itself, which is the cause of (all) the problem.

-- maybe they can do research about "the alternative to cigarette"? wouldn't that be wonderful? why wouldn't there be an alternative to cigarette? (the company can't live without cigarette?)