CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29History of Science and MedicineHistorical and modern epidemiology studiesPhilosophy and History of Science

Two approaches to etiology: the debate over smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s

Parascandola, Mark·2004·Endeavour
DOI 10.1016/j.endeavour.2004.02.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Statisticians R.A. Fisher and Joseph Berkson have become infamous for ending up on the "wrong" side of the debate over the evidence linking smoking and lung cancer during the 1950s, and scholars have speculated about their personal motives in the controversy. But there were many senior biostatisticians and epidemiologists voicing similar concerns about the quality of the evidence at the time, albeit with less inflammatory rhetoric. This debate occurred during a time when epidemiological research methods commonly used today were understood by few and were only just beginning to work their way into public health and medicine. All of the participants in the debate over smoking and lung cancer saw the need for explicit and rigorous standards for evaluating etiological hypotheses, but they held conflicting views about what those standards should be. The differing opinions on the evidence reflected two different models of etiological research--controlled experiment as the crucial, objective test of a causal hypothesis versus inferential judgment based on a diverse body of evidence. This debate has relevance for current epidemiological practice, as tension between these two views still remains.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.endeavour.2004.02.003

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ignoring these causal signals can also be harmful, as illustrated by Ronald Fisher's scepticism about the smoking-cancer link.

    “ignoring these causal signals can also be harmful, as illustrated by Ronald Fisher's scepticism about the smoking-cancer link, which was rooted in the observational nature of the evidence 78,79”

    From Quantifying the prevalence and impact of overreaching causal claims in social science (2026) · cites this paper as [79]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Parascandola, M.
Corresponding author
Parascandola, Mark
ORCID
Parascandola, Mark
Venue
Endeavour
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-06
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
81-86
ISSN
0160-9327 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.endeavour.2004.02.003
OpenAlex
W1991949501
Cited by
29
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Endeavour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › History of Science and Medicine
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Historical and modern epidemiology studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
smoking and lung cancer, etiology, causal inference, R. A. Fisher, controlled experiments, history of epidemiology, biostatistics
MeSH terms
England, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Smoking, Statistics as Topic, United States, Epidemiologic Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Biomedical Research, History, 20th Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review