On Dec. 29, the UK’s Daily Telegraph published a highly inaccurate article on the potential dangers of e-cigarettes. As of Jan. 9, it remains uncorrected.

Complaints from vapers and academics about the article’s inaccuracies have apparently made no difference to the Telegraph, and the article’s author, science editor Sarah Knapton.

Even indisputable errors such as giving the wrong journal reference for the study it was allegedly based on, and a typo in the lead, remain in place.

And of course untouched is the erroneous headline, “E-cigarettes are no safer than smoking tobacco, scientists warn.”


No. One scientist offered that personal opinion in a press release. It’s not in the study.

That study didn’t claim to find evidence of harm in people, just evidence of harm in cell cultures strongly suggestive that vaping hurts people. This demands further research to confirm or falsify the evidence, a point made in the study itself.

Of course, to understand that point, it helps to have the study before writing the story, as well as interviewing the researcher. The incorrect journal reference raises the question of whether Knapton did. The story uses quotes copied from the press release without disclosing the source, giving the false impression they were obtained by interviewing the researcher.

This toxic mixture of dodgy practices bears no relation to the honest practice of science journalism; it is more akin to politics. And whenever one mixes science or journalism with politics, politics wins.


There is also the question of whether governments should even be involved in attempts to persuade or coerce people about vaping and smoking. That is a legitimate political issue, and respectable arguments can be made on both sides. What’s illegitimate is abusing science in support of a political agenda.

We can see that science abuse taking place in Chicago, where that city’s public health department has launched an inflammatory and misleading campaign against vaping, calling it, among other things, “liquid poison.”

The ham-handed campaign was accompanied by the ill-advised launch of a Twitter hashtag, #vapingtruth, which was promptly overtaken by vaping advocates.

More important than the clumsy PR, that claim is simply not proven in the scientific literature.


There’s substantial evidence vaping is far less harmful than smoking. To be fair, there’s also evidence that vaping isn’t totally benign, and also that that risk may vary with vaping liquids. That’s why we need more research.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that any substance becomes dangerous if ingested in large enough quantities.

In the face of all these uncertainties, why should Chicago’s public health department launch such a hyberbolic campaign? It was ordered by the city’s scandal-plagued mayor, Rahm Emanuel, currently fighting for his political life for his role in covering up the shooting video of Laquan McDonald.

In addition, Chicago’s health commissioner was appointed by the mayor with City Council confirmation. Inevitably, public health officials in Chicago are not free to go where the evidence leads, but are mandated to follow a party line.


So what should be a science-based effort to improve public health has been degraded into politics, with its casual disregard for accuracy. Likewise, the important fact-checking role of science journalism has been debased to the level of political journalism.

This 21st century version of “Reefer Madness” imperils honest scientific investigation into how much risk vaping actually represents -- and its potential benefits as a means of getting smokers to quit.

And even worse, politically driven attacks on vaping draws attention away from the solidly established dangers of cigarette smoking.