Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 15 December 2006 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news061211-19
Column
Tainted by association?
Richard Doll's links with industry are disconcerting but hardly scandalous. And they don't make him a villain, says Philip Ball.
Few things will polarize opinion like the dressing down of a recently deceased and revered figure. That's clear enough in the debate that has followed the recent media splash on accusations that Sir Richard Doll, the British epidemiologist credited with identifying the link between smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s, compromised the integrity of his research by receiving consultancy payments from the chemicals industry.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
There are currently no comments.
