Thanks to the BBC, we learn of one of the greatest breakthroughs since lunchtime, if you’ll pardon the cliché, in smoking research. The headline is: ‘Sons worst affected by smoking in pregnancy.’ So there. If you’re going to smoke in pregnancy, better make sure you’re going to have a girl.

Incidentally, I do wish dear old Auntie BBC would use correct grammar. Since there are only two sexes, the headline should read: ‘Sons worse affected by smoking in pregnancy.’ (Not ‘worst.’)

It’s all about a study carried out by Professor Paul Fowler, who is pictured looking very pleased with himself, and his team at the University of Aberdeen.

The good Professor is quoted as saying: ‘We hope our findings will pave the way towards investigating the molecular effects of maternal smoking which will allow the scientific community to uncover the specific mechanisms by which the trait modifies or initiates specific diseases.’ (Groan.)

Not quite clear what he means by ‘the trait’ but let’s suppose – just suppose – that all the molecular effects of maternal smoking have been exhaustively investigated so that the scientific community has been able to uncover every possible specific mechanism by which they modify or initiate specific diseases. Then what?

Let’s go to the original nine-author, eighteen-page article in The Lancet with its seventy-nine references, in which they claim to have investigated 351,562 participants. The summary is as follows:

We found exposure to cigarette smoke in-utero for women to be significantly associated with an increased risk of heart and digestive diseases, vaginal wall prolapse, hernia, depression and anxiety, mycoses, headache syndromes, back and abdominal pain. In contrast, men had an increased risk of gout, type II diabetes, and cancer which were not observed in women.

Professor Fowler then announces the earth-shattering conclusion:

This study demonstrates the importance of campaigns promoting offspring smoking prevention in families where the parent(s) smoke.

He added:

Ultimately, we also hope it helps the medical community to develop even better counselling strategies and campaigns towards smoking cessation.

So that’s what we need: even better counselling strategies and campaigns towards smoking cessation!

Groan, again. The result of this huge research effort boils down to trying to encourage pregnant smokers to abstain through fear: if you carry on smoking you may harm the next generation. But what about the offspring in families where the parents don’t smoke? Campaigns promoting smoking prevention for them will be unimportant?

It’s been known since 1964 that smoking causes lung cancer. How much more research do we need of other harmful effects before the abnormal and potentially lethal behaviour of smoking is abolished?

Please note I said abolished, not prohibited.

Text © Gabriel Symonds

Picture credit: Elnaz Asadi on Unsplash