Embed Size (px)
23 February 2013 | NewScientist | 3
EDITORIAL
© 2013 Reed Business Information Ltd, England
New Scientist is published weekly by Reed Business Information Ltd. ISSN 0262 4079.
Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in England by Polestar (Colchester)
LOCATIONSUKLacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250
AUSTrALIATower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067Tel +61 2 9422 8559 Fax +61 2 9422 8552
USA225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451Tel +1 781 734 8770 Fax +1 720 356 9217
201 Mission Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105Tel +1 415 908 3348 Fax +1 415 704 3125
SUbSCrIpTION ServICeFor our latest subscription offers, visitnewscientist.com/subscribe
Customer and subscription services are also available by:Telephone +44 (0) 844 543 80 70email [email protected] newscientist.com/subscribepost New Scientist, Rockwood House, Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3DH
One year subscription (51 issues) UK £150
CONTACTSContact us newscientist.com/contact
Who’s who newscientist.com/people
General & media enquiriesTel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected]
editorial Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 [email protected]@[email protected]
picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268
Display Advertising Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 [email protected]
recruitment Advertising UK Tel +44 (0) 20 8652 [email protected]
UK Newsstand Tel +44 (0) 20 3148 3333Newstrade distributed by Marketforce UK Ltd, The Blue Fin Building, 110 Southwark St, London SE1 OSU
SyndicationTribune Media Services InternationalTel +44 (0) 20 7588 7588
BACK in the 1950s, when the dangers of smoking were becoming clear and the tobacco industry was panicked, cigarette-makers came up with a wheeze: safer smokes. Filter-tipped, low-tar and “light” cigarettes were the result.
In reality, those cigarettes were not safer at all. Smokers inhaled more deeply or smoked more. And the industry knew it. Internal documents later revealed that they cynically promoted safer cigarettes to discourage people from quitting.
Given this history of smoke and mirrors, you could be forgiven for being suspicious when a tobacco company announces that it is investing in a “reduced risk” cigarette. In December, British American Tobacco (BAT) bought a company called CN Creative, which makes “electronic cigarettes”. It is now planning to ask the UK authorities to recognise one of its products as a smoking-cessation medicine.
History repeating? Probably not. You could argue that aiming to profit from curing an addiction that you helped cause in the first place is pretty cynical. But credit where it is due: BAT and other tobacco companies now openly
admit that smoking is a serious health risk. There is mounting evidence that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking and really can help addicts cut down or quit. They seem especially useful for hard-core smokers who have failed to quit or who don’t even want to try (see page 6).
There are still unanswered scientific questions, including how e-cigarettes compare with existing medicines such as nicotine patches. That will form a big part of the debate on whether
to license them as a medicine.Long-term safety is also open
to question, as is whether they will serve as a “gateway” product attracting new people to smoking, and if their use in public places will renormalise smoking at a time when it is increasingly frowned upon.
But again, the evidence is pointing in the right direction. Tellingly, the anti-tobacco group Action on Smoking and Health has given a qualified backing to e-cigarettes for harm reduction.
ASH sensibly points out that e-cigarettes are clearly safer than inhaling tobacco smoke, and says there is little evidence that they will attract non-smokers or make smoking acceptable again. If so, there is little reason to worry about unintended consequences.
Don’t hold your breath, though. A similar argument has been made for “snus”, a form of oral tobacco mainly used in Sweden. There is evidence that it can help smokers quit and that it is safer than smoking. Sweden has the lowest rates of smoking and lung cancer in Europe, which is often attributed to the use of snus. By some estimates, if Sweden’s snus habit was replicated across the European Union it would prevent 92,000 lung cancer deaths a year (Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, vol 37, p 481). And yet it remains illegal everywhere in the EU but Sweden, condemned as a carcinogen and a potential gateway to smoking. The lesson? Harm reduction is a tough sell.
It may be distasteful to watch a tobacco company spearhead a campaign for cigarette harm reduction. But action is sorely needed. If the evidence stacks up, they should be given the benefit of the doubt – for now. n
Smoke without fireA tobacco giant helping you quit smoking? What a welcome change
THERE’S no need to cry over spilt chemicals. Thanks to an accident inside one of its instruments, NASA’s Curiosity rover has detected the presence of a substance called perchlorate in Martian soil (see page 44).
Not exactly earth-shattering, you might think. But it adds a new twist to the most controversial chapter in Martian history: did the Viking landers detect life?
This is a question that has divided the Viking missions’ researchers for almost three decades. One group has resolutely stuck to its guns that the landers detected signs of life. Equally adamant is a second group who say they absolutely did not – a view that has always been the official version of events.
The unexpected discovery of perchlorate supplies a legitimate
reason to reopen the debate. Perchlorate is an oxidising agent that destroys organic molecules. Its presence could finally explain the disputed results.
The episode highlights another important issue. Curiosity is a sophisticated machine, but there is only so much soil chemistry we can do from millions of kilometres away. A sample return mission must be a priority. n
We need a piece of Mars
“You could be forgiven for being suspicious when a tobacco firm invests in a ‘reduced risk’ cigarette”
130223_R_Editorial.indd 3 19/2/13 16:01:27
