Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Richard Doll: 'Why was this evil business allowed to continue for so long?'

Friday 07 February 2003 20:00 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

I feel promoting smoking – encouraging people to smoke – is evil. I hesitate to say every evil should be banned but it should be discouraged, and that this evil went on so long is a very severe criticism of governments of all parties.

I don't expect banning advertising will make a dramatic difference but it will make some difference. The real problem is that people don't appreciate the risks. Regular smoking doubles the risk of death in adult life – equal to all other risks put together. Nobody really takes that in.

When we obtained the first results showing smoking caused lung cancer in 1950 we thought people would react quickly because lung cancer is a horrible disease. In fact, very little notice was taken of our research. The cancer advisory committee of the Ministry of Health said we had demonstrated an association, not a cause, and advised the Government to do nothing.

It was not until 1957 that the Medical Research Council publicly confirmed that smoking was indeed responsible for the rise in lung cancer. The Minister of Health announced that the Government accepted the evidence now – while he smoked a cigarette.

For years after that the tobacco industry, and the media, made the link seem controversial. Each time a report said smoking caused lung cancer a doctor would be found to say it was just statistics. I always assumed that when the information was available people would react and stop smoking. I smoked for 19 years, from 18 to 37, but gave up when we got the results from our first study in 1950.

Smoking did fall in the 1960s but very slowly. The tide began to turn with the 1962 Royal College of Physicians' report Smoking and Health. It was given two pages in The Times. I still thought education was all that was necessary because the consequences of smoking were so nasty, although highertaxation would have been helpful.

In the early 1970s, there was a noticeable change in the media's attitude. They stopped putting a contrary view each time they reported on the damaging effect of smoking. And TV presenters stopped smoking while describing the nasty effects. It was a very significant moment and smoking fell quite sharply. I realised then the impact of advertising and the media. You had to get them on your side.

Professor Sir Richard Doll published the first paper linking smoking with lung cancer in the British Medical Journal in 1950. He still works at Oxford University, aged 90, today.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in