Spotlight

www.thelancet.com/respiratory Vol 2 May 2014 359

supported by such huge amounts of rigorous statistical evidence. Robert Proctor, Professor of History of Science at Stanford University (CA, USA), emphasises that “prior to the 1950s, there is probably no one who did more to nail down the tobacco-lung cancer link than Dr Lickint”.

In 1939, Lickint published his mammoth 1200-page report entitled Tabak und organismus (Tobacco and the organism), in which he linked tobacco use with several diff erent types of cancer, including those of the lips, tongue, mouth, jaw, oesophagus, windpipe, and lungs. Proctor refers to this document as “the most comprehensive scholarly indictment of tobacco ever published”. In the report, Lickint also discussed the dangers of tobacco addiction, and was the fi rst scientist to refer to it as an addictive dependence that needed treatment. He suggested several therapies to treat the addiction, some of which are still in use, and was responsible for coining the term “passive smoking”. Tabak und organismus made Lickint the physician most hated by the tobacco industry.

Shortly after the report’s publication, World War 2 broke out and Lickint was called up for active service. He spent the 6 years of the war working as a basic aidman, fi rst in France and then in Ukraine. In 1945, he returned to his work as a hospital physician, and in 1953 became hospital director of the First Medical Clinic of the Dresden-Friedrichstadt Municipal Hospital. He remained in this role until his death from an inoperable brain tumour in Heidelberg in 1960.

Fritz Lickint was one of the great pioneers in research into lung cancer and smoking, but the link between the two has now been so long established that it is perhaps easy to forget his fundamental role. Proctor describes Lickint as “one of the great unsung heroes of 20th century medical science”—a fitting description for a man who dedicated so much of his life to medicine and public health, and whose work remains so relevant today.

Katherine Gourd

FilmPutting Bhopal on screenOn Dec 3, 1984, the people of Bhopal, India, suff ered tragic consequences when methyl isocyanate and other toxic gases leaked from a pesticide plant owned by the US company Union Carbide. The gas leakage killed thousands and caused illness in many thousands more, and survivors of the disaster continue to suff er adverse health eff ects including chronic respiratory, ophthalmic, and gastrointestinal disorders. Historical drama film A Prayer for Rain presents a fi ctionalised account of the events leading up to one of the worst industrial disasters in history.

The fi lm’s narrator, a local journalist called Motwani (Kal Penn), sets the scene of Bhopal in 1984—a year of drought. As the story unfolds, we learn about Dilip (Rajpal Yadav), a rickshaw driver who is struggling to make ends meet, his family forced to rely on their neighbours’ leftovers to survive.

At the time Union Carbide was the world’s second-largest multinational company, and its motto was “working to build a better future”. But this corporate slogan bears little resemblance to the scenes depicted by director Ravi Kumar, with workers being picked out of a sea of desperate faces on the sole basis of their ability to carry heavy building materials on their backs. Dilip successfully secures a position and is put straight to work. His face beams with joy—to be an employee of Union Carbide gives him hope that he might pull himself, and his family, out of poverty.

We meet Union Carbide employee Rakesh (Om Prakash), who expresses concerns about his health while working with methyl isocyanate. Had these concerns been addressed his fate might have been diff erent. Instead, we witness just how toxic methyl isocyanate is when one drop of the chemical falls onto his arm and he screams in anguish. The chemical quickly penetrates Rakesh’s skin and he is rushed to hospital, but that single drop was enough to take his life.

Motwani is adamant to expose the truth about Rakesh’s death and to give a voice to the Union Carbide employees by delving deeper into the real dangers of methyl isocyanate. He sees a ray of hope in French journalist Eva Gascon (Mischa Barton), who he persuades to talk to Union Carbide CEO Warren Anderson (Martin Sheen).

Anderson arrives in Bhopal and while visiting the plant makes a speech reassuring employees that together they can survive the drought, emphasising that the employees are not just “Carbide”, but “Union Carbide”—a union, defi ned as people joined together with a common interest or purpose. But this solidarity is quickly jettisoned after the disaster strikes. When Anderson hears news of the gas leak, his immediate reaction is to ensure the company can avoid legal responsibility. Similarly, when questioned by Eva Gascon about Rakesh’s death, Anderson passes all blame onto the local subsidiary company, Union Carbide India, explaining his trip to Bhopal as a moral obligation rather than an admission of culpability.

A Prayer for RainRavi Kumar.2014, India, 101 min

Spotlight

360 www.thelancet.com/respiratory Vol 2 May 2014

Dilip also becomes wary of the safety of methyl isocyanate, but on realising that managers at the company are not adhering to safety standards he keeps quiet at the risk of losing his job. Later, a safety offi cer (Joy Sengupta) is shown trying to raise concerns about the temperature of the methyl isocyanate, which is rising at an alarming rate, caused by a runaway reaction with water. Soon we see clouds of gas disperse across the densely populated area surrounding the plant. Because the warning alarm had earlier been muted to prevent any unwarranted panic, the local people are left unaware of the impending catastrophe.

We see people flooding into the local hospital by the hundreds with their eyes swollen, tears streaming down their faces. As well as acute eff ects on the eyes and respiratory system, suspected cyanide poisoning from the gas leak is suggested to be aff ecting some patients, as evidenced by the cherry red colouration of their blood. The medical staff don’t have the knowledge or resources to eff ectively treat the patients, who come in greater numbers than they can possibly manage, resulting in many victims dying while they await medical attention. As Dilip fi ghts to save his sons life, Rakesh’s voice echoes in his head: “Pin the badge on your son—now he is a Carbider, people can know who killed him.” In the closing scene we see Dilip’s son left blinded by the disaster.

The fi lm ends with a list of factual statements, including that Union Carbide never released an apology and that the Dow Chemical Company, which acquired Union Carbide in 2001, accepts no liability. Both companies continue to avoid accepting any blame. In a statement, a Dow spokesperson said: “Although Dow never owned nor operated the plant, we—along with the rest of industry—have learned from this tragic event, and we have tried to

do all we can to assure that similar incidents never happen again. While Dow has no responsibility for Bhopal, we have never forgotten the tragic event.”

But if these multinational companies are not to blame, who is? Union Carbide India? The managers for not adhering to safety standards? Or even employees such as Dilip for not making their concerns heard? In the early 1990s, Warren Anderson was named as the main defendant in a case of culpable homicide in Bhopal, and was declared a fugitive from justice when he failed to turn up for the court proceedings. In 2010, seven former employees of Union Carbide India were convicted of death by negligence. They were fi ned and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, but were released on bail shortly after the verdict.

Irrespective of the real-life legal outcomes, the film’s narrative ensures that audiences will see Union Carbide as responsible, having established an emotional connection with the main character Dilip, and seen how much faith he has that this big, powerful company would provide him with a better future. Back in the real world, for survivors of the disaster, justice has not been done. Academic and social justice activist Eurig Scandrett (Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK), who has visited Bhopal and spoken with survivors, told The Lancet Respiratory Medicine of one individual who stated that “even compensation would not mean justice, whilst the causes of the disaster continue to be repeated all over the world and we await another Bhopal”.

At times the Union Carbide employees are depicted as passive and helpless victims of their fates, unable to do or say anything that could jeopardise their futures at the company. This representation garnered criticism when campaigners obtained an early version of the fi lm’s script in 2010. But audiences will be conscious that the fi lm is a dramatisation rather than an accurate depiction of real events, and the inability of workers to speak out successfully evokes the issue of workers’ rights in the context of globalisation.

Kumar should be commended for taking on the responsibility of covering the events of the Bhopal disaster, and he does so in a way that engages the audience by concentrating on a small set of interwoven lives, while also allowing space for humour and romance. The fi lm presents a realistic and relatable portrait of the lives of Bhopal’s residents, and of their customs, hopes, and aspirations.

This year will mark the 30th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster—hopefully A Prayer for Rain will do what the director hopes and raise awareness among a new generation of the tragic night in Bhopal which continues to aff ect the lives of so many, and help to prevent another disaster.

Kiran Bains

© S

ahar

a M

otio

n Pi

ctur

es &

Risi

ng S

tar E

nter

tain

men

t