Playing the man: The modern inquisition of 'concerned' science

Review - Institute of Public Affairs, May 1998 by McIntyre, Andrew

Modern advocacy science appears to have enthusiastically adopted the ad hominem principle.And the weaker the science, the stronger the abuse seems to be. A report from the smoking wars.

IT is no coincidence that at the very time post-modernist attacks on the objectivity of science have invaded-and are indeed dominatingthe humanities faculties in our most prestigious universities, political activists are increasingly misusing science as a tool of advocacy with little or no regard for objectivity or truth. The perverted use of science by the academic and political left in its service to the power elite is precisely that danger the post-modem critique wishes to address, but to which, by its own misunderstanding of science, it contributes.

There is a general expectation that to engage in the political process one also engages in compromise, consensus and the art of the possible. One could even accept that competing for research funding might involve some of the imperfections associated with that political process. But with scientific inquiry, most of us cling to the notion of rational inquiry and objectivity, of passionately disinterested research. It is perhaps symptomatic of our time that the very word 'disinterested' is now most often incorrectly used, so that the notion itself is disappearing.

The media supports the perception that science is done by press release, consensus and, increasingly, by ad hominem attacks on those who hold dissenting views. Although one can understand the need to deny scientific evidence in the time of Galileo, where one of the leading advocates of rational scientific thinking opposed a dominant ideology of belief, superstition and supposition, it is difficult to accept the need for the same inquisitorial process in the latter part of the twentieth century. From greenhouse and AIDS through to leaded petrol and child sexual abuse we now see the active perversion of scientific evidence through personal attack as a common feature of public debate. This is no less true in the highly politicized area of health and tobacco, and recently on the epidemiology of environmental tobacco smoke and its relation to disease. Dr Julian Lee, a distinguished NSW thoracic physician, and a tireless worker in this field, found out the hard way.

Dr Lee took a classical, and distinguished, path in his professional life. He has worked 40 years as a thoracic surgeon, starting at a time when specializing was in its infancy. He played the professional game-undertaking research, teaching at public hospitals, being elected as NSW President of the AMA-and has acted in various professional roles both nationally and internationally. He considers himself first and foremost to be a clinician, not a scientist, although he fervently believes that public health and epidemiology are central to our concerns about the way in which we use science to improve the quality of life for everybody.

These underlying principles of epidemiology were important in his work in asbestos-related disease. He became involved in litigation on behalf of workers who would bring actions against their former employers. Lee quickly became aware of the way scientific information was necessarily corrupted in court, due to an adversarial system under which supporting a case and giving satisfaction to claimants were more important than any notion of disinterested objectivity.

Through two decades of work as a member of the Dust Disease Board, his observations of the cost-benefit analysis of the US Asbestos Abatement Act and similar Acts in Australia, background incidence of the disease, calculations of the `strength of association', confounding factors, and the patients' behavioural characteristics, made him realize that the process of coming to a conclusion about cause and effect relationships was complicated. His concern for the critically important idea that scientific evidence must be judged on its merits, and should be completely independent from what hangs on it, became more urgent.

As a thoracic physician with an interest in smoking issues, he was invited to give evidence at a highly publicized case from Western Australia involving the Burswood Casino and the issue of `passive smoking'. Soon after, he made an independent submission to the National Health and Medical Research Council inquiry into `passive smoking'. It was from this point on that things became a bit rough. Covert pressure was applied to squeeze Lee out of the AMA. First, Dr Keith Woollard, President of the Federal AMA and then Chairman of its Policy and Ethics Committee, produced a new policy document on the disclosure of sponsorship by tobacco companies. It states:

`If a doctor has accepted funding from a tobacco company, then it is mandatory that both the amount and the precise source of the funding are detailed in the preamble to any presentation of material developed as a resuit of the funding.'

Then Woollard attempted to have Lee disciplined by the Ethics Committee and to oppose his nomination to the Roll of Fellows. The following year, a well-briefed visiting American professor of medicine, Stan Glantz, brought out for the National Heart Foundation, was interviewed on ABC radio. Glantz attacked Lee with defamatory statements, and called for his resignation as State President of the AMA. He said Lee had `no business' heading a health organization, and was 'appalled' at his work on passive smoking. He accused him of `aiding and abetting ... efforts to kill people'. After the attack, the Federal AMA received written complaints from large and prominent health organizationsincluding the National Heart Foundation-which directly or indirectly called for Lee's resignation. Woollard added publicly that the AMA was uncomfortable with Lee's work for the tobacco industry.