For the Tobacco Industry’s Backlash Against Lung Cancer Science, You’re Welcome

For the Tobacco Industry’s Backlash Against Lung Cancer Science, You’re Welcome

For the Tobacco Industry’s Backlash Against Lung Cancer Science, You’re Welcome

An early Nation investigation was “circulated far and wide throughout the huckster fraternity.”

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

The news that The Nation will be hosting a big 150th anniversary event at St. Ann’s Warehouse on Brooklyn’s waterfront—at the new St. Ann’s building, the adapted Tobacco Warehouse, built in the 1870s—sent us into the magazine’s archives looking for what we have published about the plant King James I called that “noxious weed.”

An editorial from December 1865 on “The Etiquette of Smoking” noted that tobacco smoking would likely be around at least until “we have abolished all our custom-houses, cleaned the streets of New York, and the relations of capital and labor are satisfactorily settled.” Well, the first two are nearing accomplishment—global free trade having made a great advance with the recent passage of fast-track legislation to smooth the way for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and New York’s streets looking both spick and also span ever since the rich and those of light derm evinced a desire to move back to the city—while the third appears at least to be a distinct possibility, once capital has finally drummed labor entirely out of existence. Perhaps, those conditions having been met, smoking can finally, as The Nation’s editors put it in 1865, “be improved away.”

But fast-forward almost 90 years to The Nation’s most notable—indeed, glorious—intervention on the subject of tobacco. In 1953, Dr. Alton Ochsner wrote an article for The Nation bluntly titled “Lung Cancer: The Case Against Smoking.” Long before the connection between tobacco and cancer had become an accepted scientific fact, Ochsner wrote in The Nation that there was “a definite parallelism between the incidence of lung cancer and the size of cigarette sales in the United States.”

It was the first article about the connection between lung cancer and smoking written by a medical professional. “Unfortunately,” Dr. Ochsner wrote, “many physicians, probably because they themselves smoke, are unwilling to admit that there is a causal relationship between smoking and cancer of the lung, in spite of the overwhelming statistical evidence.”

The response from the tobacco industry was swift and fierce. In a small item in The Nation the following year, assistant to the publisher Martin Solow—later an influential ad-man—wrote that Ochsner’s article helped prompt the industry to “set up a fund to subsidize tobacco-cancer research.” Solow wrote that the piece made a big spash in advertising circles, his friends in the business told him:

When the Ochsner article appeared in The Nation, copies were snatched off the newsstands in record-breaking quantities—not to mention requests to the office for additional copies. Among other things, I’m told, they were circulated far and wide throughout the huckster fraternity.

To quote one of my informants: “It was the first national-magazine piece in a long time which started the old ulcers jumping and helped promote a crop of new ones. Even back then the boys began to realize they’d have to do something.”

The Nation: instigating such realizations since 1865.

Disobey authoritarians, support The Nation

Over the past year you’ve read Nation writers like Elie Mystal, Kaveh Akbar, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Bryce Covert, Dave Zirin, Jeet Heer, Michael T. Klare, Katha Pollitt, Amy Littlefield, Gregg Gonsalves, and Sasha Abramsky take on the Trump family’s corruption, set the record straight about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s catastrophic Make America Healthy Again movement, survey the fallout and human cost of the DOGE wrecking ball, anticipate the Supreme Court’s dangerous antidemocratic rulings, and amplify successful tactics of resistance on the streets and in Congress.

We publish these stories because when members of our communities are being abducted, household debt is climbing, and AI data centers are causing water and electricity shortages, we have a duty as journalists to do all we can to inform the public.

In 2026, our aim is to do more than ever before—but we need your support to make that happen. 

Through December 31, a generous donor will match all donations up to $75,000. That means that your contribution will be doubled, dollar for dollar. If we hit the full match, we’ll be starting 2026 with $150,000 to invest in the stories that impact real people’s lives—the kinds of stories that billionaire-owned, corporate-backed outlets aren’t covering. 

With your support, our team will publish major stories that the president and his allies won’t want you to read. We’ll cover the emerging military-tech industrial complex and matters of war, peace, and surveillance, as well as the affordability crisis, hunger, housing, healthcare, the environment, attacks on reproductive rights, and much more. At the same time, we’ll imagine alternatives to Trumpian rule and uplift efforts to create a better world, here and now. 

While your gift has twice the impact, I’m asking you to support The Nation with a donation today. You’ll empower the journalists, editors, and fact-checkers best equipped to hold this authoritarian administration to account. 

I hope you won’t miss this moment—donate to The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x