"McCarthyism is Alive and Well in the Anti-Smoking Movement" Says Pr Michael SIEGEL

Quoteworthy quotations (16 and 24 October 2007) from The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary (Pr Michael S., Boston)

"It is now official. McCarthyism is alive and well in the anti-smoking movement [...] This is McCarthyism in action. Quelling debate. Stifling opposition. Expelling and blacklisting anyone who dares express dissent.
[...] No wonder the tobacco control movement has gone off the deep end in its fanaticism. Anyone who tries to stop it knows that they will be censored or expelled. You have no choice but to go along with the groupthink."

"I sense a rather McCarthyistic element in the tobacco control movement. Whether the scientific arguments I have made are valid or not is up for question and debate; the unwillingness of the movement to be willing to entertain a discussion of the validity of its scientific claims, on the other hand, is a dangerous element in a public health movement.
This may be exactly the type of problem that Rothman predicted in his commentary which suggested that focusing on the scientist rather than on the merits of the science could lead to a “new McCarthyism in science.” [77] Rothman argued that every piece of scientific work and criticism should be judged solely on its scientific merit, and that any attacks on these works should be science-based, not ad hominem attacks. My experience revealed that tobacco control advocates and groups are falling into this trap; the response to my critical pieces has consisted entirely of ad hominem attacks and has been devoid of any discussion of the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of my work."

"In his article, Enstrom too sees an element of McCarthyism in his treatment by the tobacco control movement: "Being able to distinguish between real and implied scientific misconduct is important to the integrity of science in general and to the integrity of individual scientists in particular. Falsely accusing an honest scientist of scientific misconduct is just as wrong as scientific misconduct itself. Implying that an honest scientist has committed scientific misconduct because he has published unpopular findings or has used an unpopular funding source is wrong and falls under the category of “scientific McCarthyism” [4].

As I argued in my blog post regarding the American Cancer Society's attack on Enstrom, it appears that the ACS was using Dr. Enstrom as a fall guy for unfavorable research findings. There were no grounds for a scientific misconduct charge. It was a false accusation, and it was based solely on Enstrom's having published unfavorable findings and using an unpopular funding source. It does, therefore, fall under the category of scientific McCarthyism.

[...] One question that may occur to readers is whether there is anyone else in the tobacco control movement who supported me and expressed agreement with my opinions. The answer is: absolutely. However, most of these individuals were only willing to express their support privately. To express their support publicly would result in their own expulsion from the movement, and in some cases, the end of their careers. This is how the McCarthyism in the tobacco control movement works."

NOTE: Pr James E.'s reference number 4 is the same as Pr Michael S.' number 9:

Rothman KJ. Conflict of interest: the new McCarthyism in science. JAMA 1993;269:2782-84

Image: courtesy of Sonoran Sunsets

YOU ARE NOT ON THE HOME PAGE of the OBSERVATORY on HOOKAH and HEALTH (Narghile, "Waterpipe"™, Health, Risks, Dangers, Diseases, Tar, Nicotine, Cancer). CLICK HERE to go there !