If all the data on the carcinogenic and atherosclerotic effects of smoke were correlational, I'd agree with you. But they're not. There are animal models, there are _in vitro_ tissue studies, and there are complex correlational techniques that all point to the health effects of smoking. To claim that smoking "causes" these things is based on far more than simple correlation.
That's why I can say smoking "causes" cancer to my students and not be a hypocrite. I cannot say (with the same confidence) that alcohol causes cancer, or reduces heart disease. m ------- Marc L Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Baker University College of Arts & Sciences ------- "I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it the right way, did not become more complicated." -- Paul Anderson > -----Original Message----- > From: Amadio, Dean [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:35 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: RE:[tips] BBC NEWS | Health | Drink a day increases > cancer risk > > Are you saying that we should ignore all non-experimental > research? I'm concerned you're giving this message to your > students! This is the justification the tobacco industry used > to say that there is no evidence that smoking causes lung > cancer in humans. Because we cannot produce human > experimental results here, we have to rely on more complex > correlational designs, theory, and animal models - all which > convincingly support the idea that smoking causes lung cancer > in humans. Since the amount of research in the small amounts > of alcohol/breast cancer area is not even close to what we > have regarding smoking and lung cancer, we have to adopt a > wait and see and skeptical, but perhaps somewhat prudent > attitude. This is precisely the message I give students. > Don't ignore the research just because it is correlational; > this is only a tad less naïve than just assuming all studies > are created equal. As I stated previously, I don't know if > this particular study attempted to control for other > important variables. But again, ethically, what else CAN we > do here besides correlational research? > > While the BBC article certainly overstated much (as is > typical with popular media), I think calling these types of > studies "ridiculous" is very misleading, and in some > instances, downright dangerous. Think of where we'd be with > smoking research if everyone just disregarded it as > ridiculous because of its, necessarily, correlational design? > > Dean M. Amadio, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Siena College, Psychology Department > 432 Roger Bacon Hall > 515 Loudon Rd. > Loudonville, NY 12211 > Phone: (518) 782-6768 > Fax: (518) 782-6548 > > > Amadio, Dean wrote: > > How else is one to study this issue? Much of health > research is precisely the same, due to obvious ethical > concerns, including the research on alcohol and heart disease. > Which is precisely why medical research is, in general, so > lousy and its (often overheated) conclusions keep changing > from study to study, resulting ultimately in lowered public > respect for science at large. > > What one should do is draw conclusions that are appropriate > to the evidence they are drawn from. If those conclusions are > too bland to be interesting, that doesn't justify falsely > strengthening them to make them more interesting. And that > seems to be what has happened here. > (Note that "causes" is feature in the very first sentence of > the article.) > > This is also old news (there are previous studies which > find the same relationship among women). I've been advising > my students for several years, especially females, to > consider the cancer studies whenever they hear the research > that alcohol is heart healthy. > If those cancer studies are like this one, then I would > recommend that they ignore them, for they can tell them > nothing about the effect on their health of drinking moderate > amounts of alcohol. They only tell us that the global > genetics and lifestyles of people who choose to abstain from > alcohol altogether do not result in cancer quite as much as > those of people who do not adhere to such a prohibition. > > Also, they use global percentages in their presentation of > risk, which almost inevitably misleads people about the > actual increase in risk of low base-rate conditions like > cancer. (See, e.g., the recent writings of Gerd Gigerenzer). > For instance, the article says that 5,000 of the 45,000 > annual cases of breast cancer are due to alcohol -- an > increase of 11% they say. The population of the UK is about > 60 million. Half of the those are female -- 30 million. About > 20% of those are children -- leaving 24 million. (see > http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=6). 45,000 out > of 24 million = .0019: 19 in ten thousand women are > diagnosed with breast cancer in any given year. Even if the > alcohol-cancer causal link were, in fact true, the number of > cancer cases would drop to 40,000 which, against a vulnerable > population of 24 million is .0017: 17 in ten thousand. Now > ask yourself the question: Would you change you lifestyle > dramatically to reduce a risk by 2 in 10,000? And that's if > the causal link had been established, which it hasn't been. > > Regards, > Chris > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
