Dr. Hecht, the Wallin Professor of Cancer Prevention and the American Cancer Society Research Professor at The Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota, appears to be at the center of a star-trekesque temporal loop wherein a unique circumstance mysteriously repeats itself.
I first encountered this temporal anomaly after reading an article in the Globe & Mail newspaper, authored by Andre Picard, on December 22, 2003. In that article, Picard stated:
"New research shows, for the first time, just how seriously non-smokers can be affected by secondhand cigarette smoke, even by casual exposure in a public place. The study, published in the medical journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, found that, after only four hours in a casino, non-smokers had dramatically increased levels of carcinogens circulating in their blood. Kristin Anderson, of the University of Minnesota's division of epidemiology, said the levels of two well-known tobacco-based carcinogens , known as NNK and NNAL, rose two to four times on average in non-smokers. She said that until now, a direct link between exposure to smoke and cancer-causing agents had been shown only in a laboratory setting, not in a commercial one."
Globe & Mail story
Reading those words, I had a distinct impression of deja-vu. There was something so familiar about, as if I had read the same words on the same subject sometime in the past. I started searching through my files and - lo & behold - discovered a Las Vegas Review-Journal story about an amazingly similar study to the one referred to in the Globe & Mail article, which appeared on Wednesday, September 10, 1997.
Not only was the subject of the studies referred to in both articles very similar, some specific phrasings in both articles were nearly identical and both articles - published some 6 years apart - contained an identical "first time ever" occurence.
Globe & Mail, 2003 article:
"New research shows, for the first time, just how seriously non-smokers can be affected by secondhand cigarette smoke, even by casual exposure in a public place....Kristin Anderson, of the University of Minnesota's division of epidemiology, said the levels of two well-known tobacco-based carcinogens , known as NNK and NNAL, rose two to four times on average in non-smokers. She said that until now, a direct link between exposure to smoke and cancer-causing agents had been shown only in a laboratory setting, not in a commercial one"
Las Vegas Review-Journal 1997:
"Nonsmokers who work in a smoking environment have shown physical evidence of a cancer-causing substance in their urine, according to a new study released Tuesday. According to the author, the study, presented at the American Chemical Society convention in Las Vegas, marks the first time research has been conducted in the workplace rather than in a laboratory environment"
"The substance, called NNK, was detected in the urine of nine nonsmoking hospital workers caring for patients in a smoking area of a Canadian veterans hospital, said Dr. Stephen Hecht of the University of Minnesota Cancer Center."
"This is the first time that a metabolite of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen has been found in the urine of nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke under field conditions," Hecht said."
Initially, I wondered if reporter Andre Picard - who is openly a partisan advocate for the Health Promotion industry - might have plagarized his story from the Review-Journal story of 1997. However, a little more research revealed the source of Picard's story to be a news item on the University of Minnesota's website:
Inhaling tobacco smoke in public places
wherein the wording is even more identical to the 1997 Review-Journal story:
"A new study by University researchers is the first to measure tobacco-specific carcinogens in nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in a public setting."
"This study by University researchers is the first to measure tobacco-specific carcinogens in nonsmokers exposed to ETS in a public setting"
Apparently, this unique circumstance - "the first time that a metabolite of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen [specifically, NNK] was found in the urine of nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke under field conditions" - occured twice, the first time in 1997 and then again in 2003. Both times, the study in question was conducted and publicized by Dr Hecht and his team at the University of Minnesota. How could this be? Were they trapped in a time-loop, repeating the same discovery over & over?
Obviously not, but they did report and publicize the same discovery multiple times and claimed to be making the discovery "for the first time" in both instances. Why would they do this?
What does "the importance" of Stephen Hecht's research work reveal about "the purpose" of his work -
In 2006, Hecht was awarded the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)-Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation (CRPF) Award for Excellence in Cancer Prevention Research: Hecht honored
"Dr. Hecht has been the most cited author on tobacco carcinogenesis, and is generally recognized as the world's leader in research on tobacco-specific human carcinogens called nitrosamines, found in cigarette smoke and smokeless tobacco. Other work in his laboratory, showing that exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke resulted in the presence of tobacco-specific carcinogens in nonsmokers has had a profound impact on clean indoor air laws critical for tobacco control.
"Stephen Hecht's ground-breaking and detailed research on tobacco-specific nitrosamines has enhanced our understanding of tobacco carcinogenesis," said Dr. Margaret R. Spitz, chair of the Department of Epidemiology at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and co-chair of the award selection committee. "His research has provided a strong scientific rationale for public policies on smoking restriction."
In honoring Hecht with this award, the AACR clearly states the importance of his work to be the impact it has had on advancing the Tobacco Control public policy agenda. Hecht himself describes the importance of his work: From basic research to tobacco control
"We have quantified total NNAL in amniotic fluid of mothers who smoke, in the urine of newborns of mothers who smoke, in infants exposed to parental cigarette smoke, in elementary school children, in women living with men who smoke, in hospital workers exposed to patients who smoke, in people who frequented smoking sections of gambling casinos, and in restaurants and bars where smoking was permitted. The results of these studies consistently show uptake of NNK greater than in non-exposed non-smokers, with levels of total NNAL about 1-5% as great as in smokers. These data provide very strong supporting evidence for the epidemiologic studies showing elevated risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke. These studies also have impact, because they inevitably attract media attention. This work has contributed to the legislative momentum for smoke free restaurants and bars, which, along with taxation and anti-tobacco advertising, is a mainstay of current tobacco control strategies. The regulation of indoor smoking can reduce cues for smoking, reduce the amount smoked, and ultimately can change social norms. In summary, some basic research questions involving nicotine chemistry and mechanisms of carcinogenesis of the tobacco-specific lung carcinogen NNK led to more applied studies which have had an impact on tobacco control."
One rather subtle understatement in Hecht's words above is particularly revealing:
"These studies also have impact, because they inevitably attract media attention".
It is particularly important, both to Hecht and to the entire Tobacco Control industry, that his studies attract media attention, that they are widely publicized as a result, and that fear-mongering assessments of the implications of his work be widely disseminated through the mass media. This is essential, as it generates public sympathy toward the Tobacco Control public policy measures that Hecht's research will serve as a justification for. But, why do Hecht's studies "inevitably attract media attention". Is there something about the ways that Hecht and his team promote their studies that media find seductively appealing? Is there something about "the framing" manipulations that Hecht et al use to describe their studies that grabs media attention?
How about, if they were to describe their study as "groundbreaking", "for the first time", or "the first time 'X' carcinogen was measured in non-smokers in the workplace rather than a laboratory". Would that get the media's attention? And if that worked, in 1997, why not use it again in 2003? That could be a deceptive manipulation, but does that really matter?
What Hecht's work really tells us -
In 1999, Stephen Hecht summarized & reviewed the research on tobacco smoke carcinogens and cancer: Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Cancer The importance of Hect's work, for Tobacco Control and apparently in his own eyes, is that he has developed a plausible biological explanation for how tobacco and tobacco smoke might cause cancer - particularly lung cancer - and demonstrated that his most viable culprit carcinogen, NNK, is absorbed by and can be measured in non-smokers. Widespread dissemination of these finding has resulted in a widespread belief that Hecht's work therefore proves that second-hand smoke causes cancer in non-smokers, and that widespread belief has generated public support for a range of Tobacco Control public policy measures. In this 1999 summary, however, what Hecht tells us does not in fact justify belief that second-hand smoke causes cancer in non-smokers:"...exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is widely accepted as a cause of lung cancer, although the risk is far lower than that of smoking and can be difficult to demonstrate, even in large studies".Even in the writings of distinguished scientists with great expertise in cancer causes and mechanisms, one can read statements such as: "The carcinogenic mechanisms of tobacco smoking are not well understood".
This review will attempt to provide the generally informed cancer scientist with a distillation of mechanistic information on the subject of tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer and to convince the reader that we know a great deal about the mechanisms by which these carcinogens cause lung cancer. While it is true that we may never be able to map each detail of the complex process by which cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and that there is unlikely to be a single mechanism of tobacco carcinogenesis, there are general principles that have emerged from intensive research in the past four to five decades.""The tobacco-specific N-nitrosamine NNK is a potent lung carcinogen in rats, mice, and hamsters.
It is the only [nitrosamine] compound that induces lung tumors systemically in all three commonly used rodent models.
Cigarette smoke contains substantial amounts of NNK and the total dose experienced by a smoker in a lifetime of smoking is remarkably close to the lowest total dose shown to induce lung tumors in rats.
The long-term exposure of smokers to the genotoxic intermediates formed from these carcinogens is consistent with our present understanding of cancer induction as a process which requires multiple genetic changes. Thus, it is completely plausible that the continual barrage of DNA damage produced by tobacco smoke carcinogens causes the multiple genetic changes that are associated with lung cancer. While each dose of carcinogen from a cigarette is extremely small, the cumulative damage produced in years of smoking will be substantial".Note this: "the total dose [of NNK] experienced by a smoker in a lifetime of smoking is remarkably close to the lowest total dose shown to induce lung tumors in rats". In other words, the smallest dose of NNK that can induce cancer in a rat is equivalent to the total dose of a lifetime of smoking. But Hecht's studies on NNK absorbtion by non-smokers finds that they absorb only 1-3% of the NNK absorbed by the person doing the smoking. That means, a non-smoker would have to suffer 33 - 100 liftimes of second-hand smoke exposure to accumulate the equivalent of the smallest dose that can induce cancer in a rat. If something in tobacco smoke is causing lung cancer in non-smokers, it can't possibly be NNK. Research scientists should be judged on the basis of their published work and how they represent that work to the public, not on the basis of who provides their funding. If a researcher makes false claims about their work for the sake of attracting media attention - such as claiming to make the same discovery "for the first time" more than once, or allowing their work to be misrepresented as conclusive evidence that something causes cancer in a specific population (when if fact it is merely suggestive of such a relationship) for the purpose of advancing public policy agendas - then it seems fair and appropriate to raise questions about whether or not "the importance" of their work to certain interest groups, or to a sponsor or client, might be influencing the content of that work.
My last thoughts on the utter nonsense of pretending to devise a "scientific" methodology for determining who should or should not be permitted to participate in debates about scientific matters and their implications for public policy, when in reality you are simply "dressing people up" in definitions of your own devising and then declaring them to be 'witches', i.e. dangerous heretics, i.e. "denialists", so that you can justify publicly 'burning' them.
Below is a classic Monty Python sketch with a few words & names transposed:
CROWD: A denialist! A denialist! A denialist! We've got a denialist! A denialist!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a denialist, might we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn!
MARK H: How do you know she is a denialist?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
MARK H: Bring her forward.
WITCH: I'm not a denialist. I'm not a denialist.
MARK H: But you are dressed as one.
WITCH: They dressed me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't... no.
WITCH: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
MARK H: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.
MARK H: The nose?
VILLAGER #1: And the hat -- but she is a denialist!
CROWD: Burn her! Denialist! Denialist! Burn her!
MARK H: Did you dress her up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no ... yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.
MARK H: What makes you think she is a Denialist?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
MARK H: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn her!
MARK H: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a Denialist.
CROWD: Are there? What are they?
MARK H: Tell me, what do you do with Denialists?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
MARK H: And what do you burn apart from Denialists?
VILLAGER #1: More Denialists!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
MARK H: So, why do Denialists burn? [pause]
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?
MARK H: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
MARK H: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
MARK H: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
MARK H: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No, no.
VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond!
MARK H: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
CHRIS H: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
MARK H: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
MARK H: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A Denialist!
CROWD: A Denialist!
MARK H: We shall use my larger scales!
And now, enjoy the original sketch from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
This article, by John Tierney of the New York Times, is quite insightful:
Politics in the guise of pure science
and highly relevant to the previous discussion: Riding the coat-tails of Holocaust certainty
"But climate change, like most political issues, isn’t so simple. While most scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is a threat, they’re not certain about its scale or its timing or its precise consequences (like the condition of California’s water supply in 2090). And while most members of the public want to avoid future harm from climate change, they have conflicting values about which sacrifices are worthwhile today.
A scientist can enter the fray by becoming an advocate for certain policies, like limits on carbon emissions or subsidies for wind power. That’s a perfectly legitimate role for scientists, as long as they acknowledge that they’re promoting their own agendas.
But too often, Dr. Pielke says, they pose as impartial experts pointing politicians to the only option that makes scientific sense. To bolster their case, they’re prone to exaggerate their expertise (like enumerating the catastrophes that would occur if their policies aren’t adopted), while denigrating their political opponents as “unqualified” or “unscientific.”
“Some scientists want to influence policy in a certain direction and still be able to claim to be above politics,” Dr. Pielke says. “So they engage in what I call ‘stealth issue advocacy’ by smuggling political arguments into putative scientific ones.”
Disgusting and untrue, but legal -
Meanwhile, David Ahenakew has been found not guilty of willfully promoting hatred of Jews, although his remarks were termed "disgusting and untrue" by the judge: Ahenakew acquited
There is a currently trendy effort by risk-factor epidemiologists and others working in controversial fields, to ride the coat-tails of Holocaust certainty. They claim to be engaged in "protecting" science and scientific debate from insincere efforts to derail and misdirect such debate, but their own words reveal that their true motivations have to do with creating "dangerous heretic" scapegoats and with controlling public opinion & policy.
[Disclaimer: these "Denialist" witch-hunters have perversely appropriated the term "denialist out from the proper context of "Holocaust denier/denialist". This is inappropriate and offensive: offensive analogies . Unfortunately, it will be impossible to discuss this issue without repeating their offensive usage of this terminology. I apologize to any readers who are offended by this]
Origin of the "Denialist" Inquisition -
In September of 2006, excerpts from George Monbiots book Heat were published in The Guardian newspaper: The Denial Industry Monbiot purported to be exposing a conspiracy by Big Oil to flood the media with intentionally false & misleading propaganda disguised as legitimate "climate science", for the purpose of discrediting global warming science. Monbiot further purported to expose that many of the persons and/or organizations involved in disseminating this 'propaganda' were prevbiously involved in disseminating false or misleading 'propaganda' questioning links between second-hand smoke and cancer, on behalf of Big Tobacco. Monbiot labelled these persons & groups "Denialists".
The story was picked up by Give Up Blog, where an attempt was made to define a set of rhetorical tactics used by industry propagandists and label them "Denialism": Give Up Blog - Denialists
By early 2007, the ball had been picked up by the reigning Popes of the "Denialist" Inquistion - Mark and Chris Hoofnagle - with their original site called "denialism.com" : Denialism.com
In an article from that site, the brothers Hoofnagle define denialism as: "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." : What is denialism? What follows this definition are a series of rhetorical devices allegedly employed by all "denialists" to derail "legitimate" discussion on a variety of subjects. An interesting piece of trivia for regular readers of this blog: in the comments section at the bottom of that article, you will find several comments - cheering the Hoofnagles on - from exposed fraud Cathy Bell: Cathy Bell identity revealed
The Hoofnagle Popes later moved their site to Science Blogs: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/
The Hoofnagle's make many claims about their intentions in creating these sites and agressively disseminating the memes "denialist" & "denialism", but their own words & deeds betray very different motivations. What is this "Denialist" campaign really about?
It's a witch-hunt -
This witch-hunt has nothing to do with exposing frauds, scams or hoaxes, it is about construction of a term of disparagement intended to carry the connotation of "dangerous heretic".
The Hoofnagles have created, in their "Denialist's deck of cards": http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php
and in various other places throughout their articles on "Denialism", a catalog of ways in which opponents of their policy agendas have in the past (or might, in the future) raise objections to those policy agendas. They create such a catalog, and then declare all of these objections to be "proof" that their opponents are "Denialists". Very clever lads, these Popes. So, before anyone even begins to raise objections to anything they say about any person or topic, they can start screaming "DENIALIST!" and point to their own catalog of "denialist tools" as proof! Even Uri Geller would be embarrassed by such a cheap trick.
Having anticipated that their campaign would be exposed for the witch-hunt it really is, the Hoofnagles cleverly list calling what they are up to "McCarthyism" or "witch-hunting", a sure sign that the person is a Denialist! So, already, without having mentioned one word about any specific scientific debate, by their definitions I am already a "Denialist". What a joke!
Nevertheless, they cannot escape the reality of what they've put up on the internet - and that includes lists of "dangerous heretics" to be shunned & harrassed: Who are the denialists?
They claim that their campaign is not about name-calling, they claim that they are just interested in exposing "tactics" employed by persons who intentionally obfuscate discussions of science. If that was in fact their true motivation, surely they would just list these tactics and let others analyze the arguments they might encounter for evidence of those tactics. But, no, they will save you the trouble of actually bothering to analyze what others are saying. They will tell you who is or is not a "Denialist" (dangerous heretic) - and therefore whom you ought to shun, censor and/or harrass - without any accompanying analysis of those person's works as evidence for their "guilt". That is witch-hunting. That is an inquisition. That is McCarthyism.
I hereby predict that, following the posting of this expose, their minions will invade this blog to post all kinds of nasty denunciations of me. Because, that's one of the real purposes of creating such a list of heretics - to direct those of their followers who get off on verbally savaging people on the internet as a form of 'stress release', to their "victim of the day".
Early comments on their blog, by a wise person calling himself "Kevin", very accurately nailed down what they are really up to:
"Why even coin the term "denialism" if not to smear someone through guilt by association? There are plenty of relevant terms to deal with liars, frauds, etc. Nothing about denial per se is even dishonest, so what else could the import of the term be?
If someone is denying a fact you think critical, why even lump them into a group to be dismissed rather than refuting their argumentation? The whole enterprise of categorizing people into 'denialists' and 'cranks' just smacks of mental laziness, i.e. 'here's a quick way to lump all manner of people with a point of view different than my own into a conceptual category I can ignore completely.' "
"The semantic substance of 'denialist' is not denial, even in your estimation, but intentionally poorly founded theories and ignorance of counter arguments. Why invent "denialist" then? Denial doesn't entail fraud, but your objections to "denialism" do. I can't be much plainer; I'm not objecting to you personally, I just don't like the invention of the word "denialism".Many other words in English better serve the purpose for which you are hunting, like 'charlatan', 'fraud', etc. I don't see another purpose to inventing a new word when so many already exist that are more precise and accurate. Rather I do see a reason, the rhetorical goal to equate denial of certain orthodox positions with immorality."
"I have also bemoaned the fact of life that if you don't want to get ripped off you need to research. It applies to everything involving other people you don't know intimately, not just I.D. or climate change. So what? That's life among the non-telepathic. Encouraging people to take a shortcut and lump everyone *denying* a certain position [as implied by the root of 'denialist'] is a rhetorical device which serves a different purpose than pointing out tips to spot frauds"
Yea, verily, Kevin.
It's about controlling public perception and policy-making -
In their own words:
"We don't argue with cranks. Part of understanding denialism is knowing that it's futile to argue with them, and giving them yet another forum is unnecessary."
"Recognizing denialism also means recognizing that you don't need to, and probably shouldn't argue with it."
"They're cranks and we aim to show you how you can instantly recognize and dismiss crank arguments."
Where have we heard this before, eh? Oh yes - in Dr Michael Siegel's expose about how he was taught to handle arguments against Tobacco Control orthodoxy: "Don't debate the person, just smear them by calling them a Tobacco Industry lackey" : brainwashing in tobacco control
Hmmm...the origin of this Inquisition lies in George Monbiot's book wherein he alleges that various persons sceptical of global warming theory are "industry lackeys" and therefore ought to be ignored by both the public & the press, and here we have the Popes Hoofnagle declaring that they don't argue [debate] with "denialist cranks", that you shouldn't either, and that they will tell you when to "instantly...dismiss...arguments". Let's see if the parallels between Tobacco Control Cult brainwashing and the "Denialist" Inquisition continue to hold...
For at least 15 years, the Tobacco Control Cult has been denouncing the traditional "balanced coverage" approach to journalism. They correctly perceived that balanced reporting on smoking-related issues was an obstacle to their control over public opinion and public policy. Tobacco Control's pathological lust for total control over public perceptions about smoking and ultimately public policy-making is well known & documented. It's never been a secret, so this is no "conspiracy theory". Tobacco Control has openly developed & implemented a continuous barrage of Social Marketing campaigns that even they declare to be efforts to control the public's thinking on smoking-related matters. The Cancer Society, for example, has published numerous versions of Tobacco Control Strategy guides that detail exactly how to go about manipulating & control the public's and policy maker's perceptions: Tobacco Control strategy guides
One of their principle tactics has been urging the mass media to self-censor; to stop giving balanced coverage to smoking-related issues, to stop giving space in their news coverage to specific individuals on a list of "industry lackey" heretics, and to instead declare that "there is no longer any debate" about certain issues.
This is also one of the primary "concerns" expressed by the "Denialist" Inquisition: "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." and by "in actuality there is none" they mean that Popes in some field have declared a "concensus" on a particular subject, after which "responsible" journalists are supposed to "stop giving our policy opponents media coverage, dammit!"
There are even full-fledged "studies" purporting to demonstrate that "balanced coverage" in media misleads the public as to the "true state" of research in that field: Balance as biasBut what do the Popes themselves say about their interest in controlling public perception & policy-making? "Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and is currently a 3rd year medical student. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge""Chris Hoofnagle is an attorney with experience in consumer protection advocacy in Washington and Sacramento. His interest in denialism concerns the use of rhetorical tactics by various industries in dumbing down policy debates"The Hoofnagles themselves state that their "interest in denialism" has to do with public perceptions and policy debates! There's more, of course...Mark Hoofnagle says: "Look at any group of people that is trying to distort science, and their methods, and they will almost always be using several of these methods. Further, lay people, especially in the press, seem completely unaware that these methods simply aren't valid forms of reasoning for a scientific debate." "Recognize the tactics, raise awareness that they don't represent legit debate, get everybody on the same page and hopefully when the next form of anti-science denialist BS pops up it won't be half a century before it dies again. We believe if these tactics are made recognizable and instantly illegitimate in the eyes of most people, the BS merchants will be disarmed of their best tactics." "In an ideal world, for instance, a journalist researching some topic wouldn't end up interviewing one scientist and then some flat-earther for balance."One of the Hoofnagle's allies is ScienceBlogs blogger Chris Mooney. Mooney was the author of "How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality". Mooney was also a speaker at a presentation at American University titled: "Framing Science: Ways to engage citizens and shape public policy". Some of the highlights from this presentation include;"Scientific knowledge itself is not enough to win political debates, change government policies, or sway public opinion. Scientists need to learn tactics of effective communication to target audiences. Frame theory explains how communication is transmitted and received in the media and in political discourse. Frames organize issues in ways that give them latent meaning. There are numerous frames that can be employed to package information effectively. Today more than ever, scientists have tremendous power to influence politics and solve pressing problems.""As issues at the intersection of science and politics gain more and more attention, something more than pure science--more than just "getting the facts out there"--will be necessary to break through to the public""Using cutting edge research on public opinion and media coverage of science issues, and drawing on case studies from the battles over stem cell research, evolution, global warming, hurricanes, and other subjects, Mooney and Nisbet show how scientists can learn to frame stories about old issues in new ways, while taking advantage of the fragmented media environment to micro-target specific audiences. In the process, scientists and advocates can engage citizens who are currently tuning out their messages, insulate against likely attacks, and ensure enduring relevance for their work." This is much more than simply "pointing out the weak rhetorical basis for...arguments", as Mark Hoofnagle has claimed, in fact this has nothing to do with "valid scientific debate" at all! This is about the same kind of calculated manipulation of public and policy-maker thinking for the purpose of controlling public policy that Tobacco Control has engaged in for decades. And one of those manipulative tools happens to be construction and aggressive dissemination of a term of disparagement intended to carry the connotation of "dangerous heretic". Another of these manipulative tools involves falsely implying that work in such fields as epidemiology or climate change generate "truths" of the same order of certainty represented by the historical reality of The Holocaust. Both of these manipulations are accomplished through the term "Denialist".
Addendum - I found this wonderful posting by Matthew Nisbet, Chris Mooney's co-presenter at the American University presentation mentioned above: Nisbet on "Denialism""The frame device "denier" should be laid to rest in the same rhetorical grave as other terms such as "anti-science." They serve little purpose other than to feed polarization while also frequently backfiring, turning the debate into a discussion of the alleged underhanded or sensational tactics of science defenders rather than a focus on the substance of the issues themselves.
Worse, these terms are also often inaccurate. Few if any people in modern society are actually "anti-scientific," just like on few issues are the facts or evidence as clear as the Holocaust, the comparison called to mind in any use of "denier" in political discourse."Scientific data doesn't make policy recommendations -The raw, hard-science data generated by research in any field, is incapable of giving a damn what humans do or do not do. It's just data, it doesn't have policy recommendations encoded within it. Yet, this is exactly how people like the Hoofnagles and many Desmog blog commentators talk about "the science". They make statements along the lines of: "the science says we must do X, Y, or Z", as though the raw data on climate change for example contained a secret gematria (that only scientists who share their policy goals are capable of decoding) spelling out: "sign the Kyoto Accord before its too late, you fools!" That's utter nonsense - the raw data doesn't have opinions about human public policies, it just is whatever it is. When that kind of argument is made in policy discussions, i.e., "the science says we must do X or Y", opponents of the policies "X" or "Y" may feel compelled to find some way to undermine "the science" in question. That's because, argumentation from "the science says" is extremely compelling - particularly to people who are not scientists working in that field, and certainly including politicians and other policy-makers. Everyone understands how compelling that argument is, especially when it is voiced by an acknowledged expert in that field, even though it is inherently false because "the science" is incapable of holding or expressing opinions on what humans choose to do. Nevertheless, because the argument is so compelling to so many and because few people understand that it is inherently false, when opponents of policies "X" or "Y" are thrown a bone like: "here's a flaw in that science", of course they latch onto it and repeat it endlessly (often without checking the validity of the source or even bothering to independently verify it). This allows the proponents of policies "X" and "Y" to reply with: "you don't understand the science", or "you're anti-science", or "you're not qualified to express an opinion on the science", etc. If a person was genuinely concerned to "defend science" in a particular field, they wouldn't make the inherently false statement that: "the science says we must do...", as that virtually guarantees that opponents of the policies will feel forced to attack & undermine the science in question. It is very disingenuous for people who make this argument: "the science says we must do...", to subsequently complain that their policy opponents are attempting to confuse the public's understanding of the science in question, as they have themselves forced their opponents to do this.
Anti-smoking advocates Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee continue to repeat their analogy that "scientists who have challenged the causal connection between secondhand smoke and lung cancer are comparable to Holocaust deniers": http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/02/blog-post.html
This analogy is extremely offensive. Asserting that any risk-factor epidemiology generates "fact" of the same class of certainty as historical events, in particular The Holocaust, is utterly ridiculous. Are Diethelm & McKee saying that the historical truth of The Holocaust is no more certain than risk-factor epidemiology "truths"? That would very offensive.
John P. A. Ioannidis has demonstrated that "most published research is false", and that certainly pertains specifically to risk-factor epidemiology: Why most published research is falseAre Diethelm & McKee implying that most Holocaust research is therefore also false? Diethelm & McKee need to apologize for repeating this analogy, and the European Journal of Public Health needs to apologize for publishing their analogy.
The promised expose of a "Denialist" witch-hunt will be delayed because of persistent wonkiness of the Blogger platform. I'm not taking a chance on ending up with a frozen site, like whatever happened to the original Rigorous Intuition site. But here's a quickie summary:The term "denialist" has perversely been taken out from the proper context of "Holocaust denier/denialist" and is now being increasingly applied to anyone who raises objections to alleged "scientific concensus" in many fields. There are a complex set of rationalizations for doing this, and doing it in the name of "defending science", but the underlying motivation appears to be control of public perception and policy-making. This witch-hunt has nothing to do with exposing frauds, scams or hoaxes, it is about construction of a term of disparagement intended to carry the connotation of "dangerous heretic". Initially, the term was primarily applied to persons suspected of acting as propaganda shills for corporate interests but - predictably - it didn't take long for this aggressively disseminated meme to degenerate into an excuse for harrassing and censoring any person that anyone applies the term to.
After Nova Scotia passed one of the best examples of a bad law - making smoking in vehicles when anyone aged 19 or younger was present a crime: Nova Scotia makes the law an ass -
and sparked a Moral Panic for similar legislation across the country, I predicted that such laws would become another manifestation of 'victimless crime'. In fact, I even wrote to several law professors across the country who have done work on the subject, and pointed out exactly how & why these laws were likely to become a new class of victimless crime.
Today, the Toronto Sun has a story which proves me right:
Man nailed for smoking in car "A Port Hope man is the second person in Ontario charged under a new law that prohibits smoking in vehicles carrying children.
And while the 20-year-old man was waiting to be issued his ticket after being pulled over yesterday, his 15-year-old female passenger got out of the vehicle and lit up a cigarette.
Port Hope Police Const. Tammie Hartford said she could only watch in frustration as the 15-year-old smoked.
"She was the reason why I pulled the vehicle over," she said. "She was under the age (of 16)."
Under provincial law, it's only illegal to sell or supply cigarettes to anyone under the age of 19, but there's no law prohibiting a person under 19 from smoking.
Hartford noticed the vehicle travelling on Victoria St. N.
There were four people in the vehicle and she said she recognized one as being under the age of 16.
Hartford said she saw the driver smoking and watched him flick the ashes out twice before pulling the car over.
Under the new Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act 2008, which came into effect on Jan. 21, smoking is prohibited in a motor vehicle with persons under the age of 16.
The fine, a provincial offence, carries a $125 ticket, plus court costs that drive the total up to $155. If a person fights the fine in court and loses, the fine can jump to $250."Who was "the victim" of this 20-year-old man smoking in his vehicle? The 15-year-old girl, who is herself a smoker? What a load of bullshit.
