Sir

At the end of 1996, Nature published my views about behavioural (that is, non-chemical) addictions and the biopsychosocial nature of addiction (Nature 384, 18; 1996). These views were originally submitted as an item of correspondence under the title “Addicted to anything?”. After revision, however, it was published under the title “Nicotine, tobacco and addiction”.

I thought this title was a little strange — particularly because there was no mention of nicotine, tobacco or smoking in the article itself — but I was pleased just to have had something published in Nature. Since that time, however, a number of events have happened that I feel I should share.

Obviously, the publication of my short article automatically led to entry on academic databases all over the world. As a consequence, anyone who types keywords such as “nicotine”, “tobacco” or “addiction” into word searches will eventually come across my contribution. On the positive side, I have received what appears to be a record number of reprint requests from academics all over the world wanting to read my thoughts about addiction. In addition, some of those requesting my article were (quite understandably given the title) members of the tobacco industry.

I have also received many telephone calls from the media and legal firms representing the tobacco industry who have done their database word searching and come up with my name (or rather that of “tobacco” and “nicotine”). With regards to the media, I am generally happy to explain my general views on addiction but would be the first to admit I do not consider myself an “expert” on anything concerning nicotine. However, the number of legal firms that have contacted me is not something I have relished.

The feeling I get is that they want to use my research findings to get themselves “off the hook”. The general sequence of events is as follows. A legal firm telephones me to say they would like to speak to me face to face about my views on the psychological nature of addiction. I meet them (usually) in their London offices. They tell me they are looking for “scientific advisers” and/or “expert witnesses” to represent their clients (the tobacco industry). I speak to them for about an hour and explain that just because I believe psychological processes to be fundamental in the explanation of all addictions does not excuse the fact that nicotine is physiologically addictive.

Hopefully, with the word “tobacco” in the title of this piece of correspondence, the legal representatives of the tobacco industry will leave me alone!

• The title was broadened to reflect an accompanying letter. — Editor, Nature