Oh for goodness sake!
It goes like this - decent research picked up by journalist who
a) probably failed GCSE Science
b) has to squeeze it into 200 words
c) to be read by people who really don't understand scientific research anyway
Headline: Scientists research the blindingly obvious!
Do you really think that after years of study researchers were unaware of the inherited nature?
But unless people with a genetic disposition to baldness are more likely to smoke you'll get a similar percentage of those with a genetic disposition in both groups.
But this isn't even a new piece of work - it's a meta-study!
A review of the existing literature of other studies done on the subject
http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/ 137/7/943?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFOR MAT=&fulltext=smoking+baldness&searchid=1&FIRS TINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
And all of a sudden there's a Mail headline " Smoking turns men bald - new research claims"
No it damn well doesn't claim that