"This book is not less scientific because my manner is personal, and
I make no apology for it."
--Jacob Bronowski, "The Common Sense of Science"
However dramatic my previous letter on the Enstrom and Kabat study
might play (CONTEXT & COMMON SENSE--or: 2nd-HAND POISON'S OK.
REALLY!..., 5/30/03), I neither see nor mean to say anything bad about
BMJ's editor, Richard Smith (From hero to pariah in one easy jump,
5/18/03). Moreover, I'm sure his initial position seemed reasonable. I do
believe the Journal missed some critical context and deeper consequences.
But my point is, much as emotions fly (which they tend to do) and tend to
land on his doorstep, I support him in not visiting the tailor to be
fitted for any mantle of pariah-hood. His past moral clarity and
commitments speak for themselves. My point was that, for ANY of us, our
commitments can break down at any number of places.
My own expressions come from my commitment to distinguish ethical
terrain so it might free us up a bit. That is not a purely scientific
pursuit; but then, neither are any of the letter responses--including
those urging us to stick to the science and submit our emotions to the
tabloids (e.g., On the objectivism of science, Kurt J. Zuckermann 6/2/03).
It is, however, very much about the context in which science is done. That
wider landscape never has been and never will be restricted to science
itself. It is legitimate turf all the same. That is, if we want good
science. Off the top of my head it includes questions of ethics, politics,
policy, values, accuracy, integrity, resources, power, and responsibility.
"Sticking to the science" is a laudable goal. But if you ignore those
questions of social context, not only is scientific focus hardly possible,
it is also likely to be a cigar exploding in your face. It is tempting to
join those who would admonish, "let's be reasonable," and sometimes that
would be good to do. That also can be cover, a sort of pretense, for not
risking hard and courageous inquiries where the stakes are as high as the
emotions. I suggest that that conversation, in the end, is one that stands
to make the big difference.
For some things are worth being unreasonable about. We all know, yet
can't every moment live in the presence, of the lives at stake and the
scale of tobacco-related suffering--the numbers alone are beyond what we
can take in or imagine. In the face of that, WHAT CHOICES AND ACTIONS ARE
CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMMITMENTS TO HEALING AND HEALTH? That is a valid, if
not central, inquiry. It is ongoing. It is not, according to warehouses of
tobacco company documents, a question in which the tobacco industry is
remotely interested, save to ignore it for purposes diametrically opposed
to those of health science.
That's why I say it's nuts NOT to consider that anything they offer
up (or fund for offering) is at counter-purposes to--hence, inconsistent
with--purposes of health, including research, publications, or services.
This is not speculation or someone reading tobacco companies' minds: it is
the industry's own stand and set of clear declarations, atop mountains of
hard evidence. Not to mention that, consistently over the decades, their
own body of work is littered with millions of bodies. Is that enough
conflict of interest to disqualify a group from any connection to bona
fide health research or distribution thereof? Just a question.
In short, while such industry "science" offerings might be
interesting or valid technically, they would not be within the proper
goals of science. Science is about more than technique or method. (If you
don't agree, recall what certain Nazi "scientists" were doing in the 40s
to see where that slippery, gruesome road can eventually lead.)
I wouldn't say our motives must be pure; they might be multiple and
complex. But to claim concern for health while aligning with those
unquestionably opposed to it can only be to speak from confusion,
pretense, or denial--none of which are foundations of science. A scientist
takes tobacco company money. A health publication deals in tobacco company
-funded research. Both postures are of questionable integrity. Hence, so
many questions among us.
The human challenge is to integrate matters of science, conscience
and the heart, to address all our experience: physical, intellectual,
emotional, and whatever else comes up in the process. In that, I support
anyone.
Like football receivers or wingers, sometimes one has to commit and
go deep. In the words of Ian Barbour, Carlton College's MacArther Award-
winning historian of religion and science, "The choice is not between
'faith' and 'no faith,' but only 'faith in what?'"(Issues in Science and
Religion, 1966). Rarely is that not a risk or deserving of compassion.
*Rick Bernardo is a consultant, comedian, and director of
Professional Performance Programs in ethics, communications, and health.
Competing interests:
I have developed and directed statewide tobacco prevention projects for California and Minnesota, and am developing a book on the ethical landscape behind the tobacco war.
Rapid Response:
Science: Talking the talk, or walking the walk?
"This book is not less scientific because my manner is personal, and
I make no apology for it."
--Jacob Bronowski, "The Common Sense of Science"
However dramatic my previous letter on the Enstrom and Kabat study
might play (CONTEXT & COMMON SENSE--or: 2nd-HAND POISON'S OK.
REALLY!..., 5/30/03), I neither see nor mean to say anything bad about
BMJ's editor, Richard Smith (From hero to pariah in one easy jump,
5/18/03). Moreover, I'm sure his initial position seemed reasonable. I do
believe the Journal missed some critical context and deeper consequences.
But my point is, much as emotions fly (which they tend to do) and tend to
land on his doorstep, I support him in not visiting the tailor to be
fitted for any mantle of pariah-hood. His past moral clarity and
commitments speak for themselves. My point was that, for ANY of us, our
commitments can break down at any number of places.
My own expressions come from my commitment to distinguish ethical
terrain so it might free us up a bit. That is not a purely scientific
pursuit; but then, neither are any of the letter responses--including
those urging us to stick to the science and submit our emotions to the
tabloids (e.g., On the objectivism of science, Kurt J. Zuckermann 6/2/03).
It is, however, very much about the context in which science is done. That
wider landscape never has been and never will be restricted to science
itself. It is legitimate turf all the same. That is, if we want good
science. Off the top of my head it includes questions of ethics, politics,
policy, values, accuracy, integrity, resources, power, and responsibility.
"Sticking to the science" is a laudable goal. But if you ignore those
questions of social context, not only is scientific focus hardly possible,
it is also likely to be a cigar exploding in your face. It is tempting to
join those who would admonish, "let's be reasonable," and sometimes that
would be good to do. That also can be cover, a sort of pretense, for not
risking hard and courageous inquiries where the stakes are as high as the
emotions. I suggest that that conversation, in the end, is one that stands
to make the big difference.
For some things are worth being unreasonable about. We all know, yet
can't every moment live in the presence, of the lives at stake and the
scale of tobacco-related suffering--the numbers alone are beyond what we
can take in or imagine. In the face of that, WHAT CHOICES AND ACTIONS ARE
CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMMITMENTS TO HEALING AND HEALTH? That is a valid, if
not central, inquiry. It is ongoing. It is not, according to warehouses of
tobacco company documents, a question in which the tobacco industry is
remotely interested, save to ignore it for purposes diametrically opposed
to those of health science.
That's why I say it's nuts NOT to consider that anything they offer
up (or fund for offering) is at counter-purposes to--hence, inconsistent
with--purposes of health, including research, publications, or services.
This is not speculation or someone reading tobacco companies' minds: it is
the industry's own stand and set of clear declarations, atop mountains of
hard evidence. Not to mention that, consistently over the decades, their
own body of work is littered with millions of bodies. Is that enough
conflict of interest to disqualify a group from any connection to bona
fide health research or distribution thereof? Just a question.
In short, while such industry "science" offerings might be
interesting or valid technically, they would not be within the proper
goals of science. Science is about more than technique or method. (If you
don't agree, recall what certain Nazi "scientists" were doing in the 40s
to see where that slippery, gruesome road can eventually lead.)
I wouldn't say our motives must be pure; they might be multiple and
complex. But to claim concern for health while aligning with those
unquestionably opposed to it can only be to speak from confusion,
pretense, or denial--none of which are foundations of science. A scientist
takes tobacco company money. A health publication deals in tobacco company
-funded research. Both postures are of questionable integrity. Hence, so
many questions among us.
The human challenge is to integrate matters of science, conscience
and the heart, to address all our experience: physical, intellectual,
emotional, and whatever else comes up in the process. In that, I support
anyone.
Like football receivers or wingers, sometimes one has to commit and
go deep. In the words of Ian Barbour, Carlton College's MacArther Award-
winning historian of religion and science, "The choice is not between
'faith' and 'no faith,' but only 'faith in what?'"(Issues in Science and
Religion, 1966). Rarely is that not a risk or deserving of compassion.
Rick Bernardo, M.A. Bioethics*
Minneapolis, MN 55417-1808
http://www.brilliantliving.com/BernardoBio.htm
(612) 824-7176
*Rick Bernardo is a consultant, comedian, and director of
Professional Performance Programs in ethics, communications, and health.
Competing interests:
I have developed and directed statewide tobacco prevention projects for California and Minnesota, and am developing a book on the ethical landscape behind the tobacco war.
Competing interests: No competing interests