ArticleHistorical journal (Cambridge, England)2006
THE POLICY RESPONSE TO THE SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER CONNECTION IN THE 1950s AND 1960s.
Article in Historical journal (Cambridge, England), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting smoking and fighting cancer in Australian migrant newspapers, 1930-60.Medical history · 2026Article
- Cornfield's Pragmatic Contribution to Policy Discourse: Continued.Observational studies · 2026Article
- Article
- Inhaling Democracy: Cigarette Advertising and Health Education in Post-war West Germany, 1950s-1975.Social history of medicine : the journal of the Society for the Social History of Medicine · 2015Article
- Local leadership in public health: the role of the medical officer of health in Britain, 1872-1974.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2007Article
- Medicine and the public: the 1962 report of the Royal College of Physicians and the new public health.Bulletin of the history of medicine · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A key current concern is how scientific knowledge may inform policy in relation to major environmental and health concerns. There are distinct schools of analysis about this relationship between science and policy. They stress rational relationships; denial and delay; or the role of networks. History is important in modifying such perspectives: smoking policy in the 1950s and 1960s is the case study here. The initial response in the 1950s to the link between smoking and lung cancer was in part conditioned by the role of the tobacco industry and the financial importance of tobacco: the British tobacco industry had closer relationships with government than the American one, and did not rely on public relations. Public health interests worked with the industry. But politicians were concerned also about the fluidity of the epidemiological evidence; the dangers of stirring up further pressure over air pollution; the financial and ideological implications of health education and its location; and the electoral dangers of intervening in a popular mass habit. In the 1960s the British and American medical reports stimulated the growth of a public health 'policy community'. The initial political considerations began to weaken and these years marked the beginning of a new style of public health.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.