From Professor H. J. Eysenck Sir: Mr Weidber g complains (February
1) that in my review of Illich's book 1 "smuggled in a parenthesis" to the effect that we can blame ourselves for health troubles because, inter alio. we don't stop smoking. He finds this odd, in view ot the tact "that Professor Eysenck has been a notorious propagandist on the subject and has actually written a book not long ago denouncing the view that smoking caused lung cancer." He also wishes me to withdraw publicly my "arguments in favour of smoking." Alas, he does not seem to have read my book, Smoking, Health .and Personality, with the necessary -attention. I nowhere present any arguments in favour of smoking. and in fact state clearly that smoking is unhealthy; I do not think I have anything to withdraw in this respect. What I was concerned in my book to pointout was the poor logic and the even poorer statistics on which the argument about the multiple lethal effects of smoking were based. I suggested that the so-called experiments did not rule out important alternative explanations, such as genetic causes predisposing a person to smoking, and also to particular diseases. Evidence from studies of iden tical twins discordant tor smoking (i.e. one smoking, the other not) has since shown that when heredity is held constant in this manner, the development of cardiovascular diseases is not different for the smoking as compared with the non-smoking twin; if any non-smoker who is significantly more likely to be ill. This kind of finding reinforces my plea for better controlled and analysed experiments in this extremely important area. There is no doubt that smoking has deleterious effects on the lungs, but to state that "smoking causes lung cancer" is the sort of simplistic statement which is simply not supported by the evidence. Roughly one in ten heavy smokers will end up with lung cancer: consequently smoking is not a sufficient cause. Roughly one in ten lung cancer victims is a non-smoker; consequently smoking is not a necessary cause. Until we know far more than we do about the precise chain of causation, I deplore scare-mongering statements not backed by adequate evidence. Statistical evidence from uncontrolled mass surveys is suggestive, but it does not provide the necessary causal evidence needed for strong statements of this kind. This does not give smoking a clean bill of health; 1 was quite explicit about this in my book. Perhaps Mr Weidberg will re-read it and withdraw his accusations of "quite disgraceful conduct." Such words are not helpful in promoting a serious debate on p serious subject.
H. J. Eysenck
Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5
H. J. Eysenck
Previous page
