Re: Why Do Researchers Tell Lies About Smoking and Health?
- From: Richard Ulrich <Rich.Ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 22:47:54 -0400
On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:25:17 +0800, Ray Johnstone <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Why Do Researchers Tell Lies About Smoking and Health?
Scientists like to have new ideas and results.That is how science
makes progress. But the ideas and results must not be too radical.
They must be compatible with orthodox science. For the question of
smoking and health that means they must be consistent with the belief
that smoking is overall harmful to health.
- I'd only say, "... overall harmful to health in many respects."
This poses a serious but not
insurmountable problem for scientists studying diseases which appear
to be prevented by smoking. This includes ulcerative colitis,
Well, they can't spout off like idiots, but I'm not sure
where there is a 'serious' problem at all. The scientists
who *really* have to speak carefully are the ones whose
evidence indicate that a daily drink or two might help
prevent heart disease, while acknowledging that much more
drink than that is a hazard for both physical and mental health.
pre-eclampsia, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, allergic lung disease and
dementia. Papers describing such work usually include a statement such
as: "Conclusions - These findings suggest an inverse association
between smoking and Alzheimer's disease, although smoking cannot be
advocated for other health reasons." (van Duijn and Hofman, 1991) It
is like a protective mantra: Yes, smoking seems to prevent some
disease but this has not shaken our faith. [... break]
The major cause of death from smoking is heart disease, not cancer.
That handles a couple of your further objections.
These days, one link seems to be between smoking, infections
of the gums, and the circulatory system.
A major feature to consider in the practice of science is the
"research program." Scientists look in the directions where
advance seems possible. This has long been the case,
according to the people who study the history of science.
I recommend the book, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge,
edited by Imre Lakatos. This is a set of discussions from a
symposium on the ideas of Thomas Kuhn's -- "normal" and
"revolutionary" science, and paradigms.
This was a 'heavy read' when I read it 20+ years ago, but
more of the ideas should be a bit familiar today.
Apparently, as we learn from history, an idea is not always
"defeated" by being proven wrong. It may be abandoned when
other ideas succeed in attracting all the graduate students.
That is what happened, for instance, with "phlogiston". Its
proponents were never convinced by the new-fangled
caloric theory of heat, but they did not lead a new generation
of scientists.
Now, if there are some folks out there with theories
of some healing powers of cigarettes, they do have to
recognize that smoking is a powerful poison. Not only that,
but it is simply obnoxious to the people in the near vicinity.
It is like a devout
Christian who finds himself in the presence of evil and makes the sign
of the cross. This gesture both protects him from the evil and at the
same time asserts his unwavering and steadfast faith.
But there is one part of smoking and health which is much more
troublesome and that is smoking and cancer. For fifty years this has
been the cornerstone of the antismoking movement. Without it the
entire edifice might crumble. The vast financial enterprise of the
antismoking movement might collapse, and with it its well-heeled
propagandists.
Who is well-heeled? The government still subsidizes tobacco
growers. The Senate used to represent Democrats in the south
who stood for Oil and Tobacco; Democrats got too uneasy about the
morality of standing for death and profiteering, and the Republicans
happily took over. In a sort of Libertarian comeuppance, courts
have awarded many *billions* to the anti-smoking side... in some
fashion. George Bush, et al., are still working to undo those
decisions (part of 'tort reform' - maybe an essential part).
All the easy money comes from the side that sells drugs, that is,
cigarettes. Especially the money for scientists. Yes, look at money
as motivation for arguments.
The scientist who finds for example that smoking does
not cause lung cancer or, far worse, that it prevents lung cancer, is
in an invidious position. He cannot say "we have shown that cigarette
smoke prevents lung cancer, although smoking cannot be advocated for
other health reasons." That would appear ludicrous. This was the
problem faced by Boffetta et al (1998) in their case-control study of
passive smoking and lung cancer conducted for the World Health
Organization, the largest ever conducted. Their dilemma is revealed in
the abstract of their paper: "Results: ETS [PS] exposure during
childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer
(odds ratio for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval = 0.64
0.96"
and
"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood
exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk."
To anyone familiar with scientific prose this is grotesque. The
authors state their results as numbers and then in words deny they
found any such thing. It seems that Boffetta et al found their own
results so disturbing they could not bear to mention them in words and
indeed felt obliged to lie about them. Furthermore, just as they could
not confront their own results nor could they mention the work of
Brownson et al (1992) who had found a similar significant protective
effect.
This is not nit-picking or pedantry. The history of science is
replete with examples of surprising, even paradoxical results which
have proved far more productive than results which were expected.
The work of Boffetta et al is quoted in about 40 other PS papers. I
have yet to find even one which mentions their only significant
result. Like Boffetta, their attitude seems to be "Don't mention the
nasty bogeyman and he might go away."
I haven't checked those sources, but here is a guess.
Assuming the research goes exactly as you describe it,
I will suggest their attitude may be, "There is no way that
this finding fits into a reasonable research program." Or,
if there is a place, it might be in looking for confounding variables
that prevented the 'expected' result. In my opinion, the
*expected* effects are small enough that they would be
expensive to investigate for any purpose.
Why do researchers tell lies about smoking and health? Because some
things are too disturbing to admit and their existence must be denied.
Nah, that can't be the whole story. Too many scientists are
happy to admit odd findings if they promise new research
opportunities. And everyone is looking for miracle cures.
But in this case, Where is the viable research?
Boffetta et al (1998): http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/WHO1.mht
Brownson et al (1992): http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/b.html
Van Duijn and Hofman (1991): BMJ, 302, 1491-1494
--
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why Do Researchers Tell Lies About Smoking and Health?
- From: Ray Johnstone
- Re: Why Do Researchers Tell Lies About Smoking and Health?
- Prev by Date: Re: statistical error of correlated events?
- Next by Date: Re: World Health Organization results: Passive Smoking in Childhood Prevents Lung Cancer
- Previous by thread: range issues in ANCOVA
- Next by thread: Re: Why Do Researchers Tell Lies About Smoking and Health?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
