A "Mean Quarrelsome Spirit:" Controversy in British Systematics, 1822-1836.

British systematics was distinctly marked by a raft of vituperative controversies around the turn of the 1830s. After the local collapse of broad consensus in the Linnaean system by 1820, the emergence of new schemes of classification-most notably, the "quinarian" system of William Sharp Macleay-brought with it an unprecedented register of public debate among zoologists in Britain, one which a young Charles Darwin would bitterly describe to his friend John Stevens Henslow in October 1836 as possessing a "mean quarrelsome spirit," conducted in "a manner anything but like that of gentlemen." This article aims to provide a social and conceptual account of the remarkable tenor of zoological discourse in Britain in the late 1820s and early 1830s, with joint attention to the philosophical and interpersonal commitments at play. In doing so, it analyzes the three of the period's most striking public controversies, each of which counted key advocates of the quinarian system as central participants.

Kiaer and the rebirth of the representative method: A case-study in controversy management at the International Statistical Institute (1895-1903).

Anders N. Kiaer (1838-1919), the director of Norway's Central Bureau of Statistics between 1877 and 1913, was the foremost promoter, at the turn of the 20th century, of the rebirth of what came to be known as the "representative method" or sample survey. His advocacy of a methodology that had been abandoned at the beginning of the 19th century in favor of complete enumeration (the census) provoked a controversy at the International Statistical Institute (ISI) when he first presented it in 1895. Yet, it was "recommended" in fairly short order, by 1903. This was the result of a convergence of factors that prevented the dispute from degenerating into a full-blown conflict and facilitated continuing the discussion while preventing a potential break-up of the association. To understand how this came about, the paper examines (1) the role of the historical background from which the ISI emerged; (2) the epistemic beliefs that informed the ISI members in their daily professional practice; (3) the social structure of the ISI and its "ethos"; (4) the professional standing Kiaer enjoyed within the international statistical community. This is a case-study in the sociology of how and why some scientific practices initially seen as "dangerous" gain acceptance and become part of science's lore.

Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods.

BACKGROUND: Critical knowledge of what we know about health and disease, risk factors, causation, prevention, and treatment, derives from epidemiology. Unfortunately, its methods and language can be misused and improperly applied. A repertoire of methods, techniques, arguments, and tactics are used by some people to manipulate science, usually in the service of powerful interests, and particularly those with a financial stake related to toxic agents. Such interests work to foment uncertainty, cast doubt, and mislead decision makers by seeding confusion about cause-and-effect relating to population health. We have compiled a toolkit of the methods used by those whose interests are not aligned with the public health sciences. Professional epidemiologists, as well as those who rely on their work, will thereby be more readily equipped to detect bias and flaws resulting from financial conflict-of-interest, improper study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, bringing greater clarity-not only to the advancement of knowledge, but, more immediately, to policy debates. METHODS: The summary of techniques used to manipulate epidemiological findings, compiled as part of the 2020 Position Statement of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) entitled Conflict-of-Interest and Disclosure in Epidemiology, has been expanded and further elucidated in this commentary. RESULTS: Some level of uncertainty is inherent in science. However, corrupted and incomplete literature contributes to confuse, foment further uncertainty, and cast doubt about the evidence under consideration. Confusion delays scientific advancement and leads to the inability of policymakers to make changes that, if enacted, would-supported by the body of valid evidence-protect, maintain, and improve public health. An accessible toolkit is provided that brings attention to the misuse of the methods of epidemiology. Its usefulness is as a compendium of what those trained in epidemiology, as well as those reviewing epidemiological studies, should identify methodologically when assessing the transparency and validity of any epidemiological inquiry, evaluation, or argument. The problems resulting from financial conflicting interests and the misuse of scientific methods, in conjunction with the strategies that can be used to safeguard public health against them, apply not only to epidemiologists, but also to other public health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: This novel toolkit is for use in protecting the public. It is provided to assist public health professionals as gatekeepers of their respective specialty and subspecialty disciplines whose mission includes protecting, maintaining, and improving the public's health. It is intended to serve our roles as educators, reviewers, and researchers.

Evidence use in E-cigarettes debates: scientific showdowns in a 'wild west' of research.

BACKGROUND: Against a backdrop of declining tobacco use, e-cigarette markets are growing. The UK now has a higher percentage of e-cigarette users than any other European country. These developments have prompted fierce discussions in scientific, advocacy and policy communities about how best to respond. This article is one of the first to examine the role of evidence in these debates. METHODS: We analysed 121 submissions to two Scottish policy consultations on e-cigarettes (in 2014 and 2015) and undertook interviews with 26 key informants in 2015-2016, following up with a sub-set in 2019-2020. All data were thematically coded, and our analysis was informed by insights from policy studies and the sociology of science. RESULTS: First, we affirm previous research in suggesting that e-cigarettes appeared to have triggered a breakdown of old public health alliances. Second, we demonstrate that, amid concerns about research quality and quantity, actors are guided by normative outlooks (and/or economic interests) in their assessments of evidence. Third, we show that, despite describing e-cigarette debates as contentious and polarised, actors engaging in Scottish policy debates exhibit a spectrum of views, with most interviewees occupying an uncertain 'middle ground' that is responsive to new evidence. Fourth, we suggest that the perceived divisiveness of e-cigarette debates is attributed to recurrent media simplifications and tensions arising from the behaviours of some actors with settled positions working to promote particular policy responses (including by strategically enrolling supportive evidence). Fifth, we argue that the actions of these actors are potentially explained by the prospect that e-cigarettes could usher in a new tobacco 'policy paradigm'. Finally, we show how scientific authority is employed as a tool within these debates. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette debates are likely to reconcile only if a clear majority of participants in the uncertain 'middle ground' settle on a more fixed position. Our results suggest that many participants in Scottish e-cigarette debates occupy this 'middle ground' and express concerns that can be empirically assessed, implying evidence has the potential to play a more important role in settling e-cigarette debates than previous research suggests.

La controversia científico-técnica sobre las benzodiacepinas en profesionales de la salud pública de Uruguay / A controvérsia científico-técnica sobre as benzodiazepinas entre profissionais de saúde pública do Uruguai / The scientific-technical controversy over benzodiazepines among public health professionals in Uruguay

Resumen La controversia científico-técnica internacional sobre las benzodiacepinas, intensa durante los años ochenta y noventa, cuestionó su lugar en la práctica clínica, por su potencialidad adictiva, y por el abuso que médicos y pacientes parecerían realizar. Este artículo presenta resultados de una investigación que tuvo como objetivo analizar el papel de dicha controversia en las prácticas médica, psiquiátrica y psicológica en los servicios de salud pública uruguayos. Se utilizó metodología cualitativa y se combinó relevamiento de artículos académicos nacionales (1960-2012), entrevistas en profundidad a 45 profesionales y dos grupos de discusión. Se efectuó análisis de contenido desde cuatro ejes: ansiedad en la clínica, prescripción, relación tratamientos farmacológicos con no farmacológicos y valoración de benzodiacepinas. Se obtuvo un panorama diacrónico de la controversia académica y se identificó una valoración condicional de estos medicamentos realizada por los profesionales que supone: reconocimiento de atributos positivos y negativos de las benzodiacepinas, uso mesurado, médicos y pacientes vigilantes de sus propios comportamientos. Se concluye que la controversia se plantea en términos individuales, lo que obstaculiza una discusión global de las dimensiones políticas y colectivas implicadas.

Resumo A controvérsia científico-técnica internacional sobre as benzodiazepinas, intensa durante os anos 1980 e 1990, questionou seu lugar na prática clínica devido a sua potencialidade aditiva e pelo abuso que médicos e pacientes pareciam realizar. Este artigo apresenta resultados de uma pesquisa que teve como objetivo analisar o papel dessa controvérsia nas práticas médica, psiquiátrica e psicológica nos serviços de saúde pública do Uruguai. Utilizou-se metodologia qualitativa e combinou-se um levantamento de artigos acadêmicos nacionais (1960-2012), entrevistas em profundidade com 45 profissionais e dois grupos de discussão. Realizou-se análise de conteúdo a partir de quatro eixos: ansiedade na clínica, prescripção, relação entre tratamentos farmacológicos e não farmacológicos e avaliação das benzodiacepinas. Obteve-se um panorama diacrônico da controvérsia acadêmica e identificou-se uma avaliação condicional desses medicamentos realizada pelos profissionais, que supõe: reconhecimento de atributos positivos e negativos das benzodiazepinas, uso controlado, médicos e pacientes vigilantes de seus próprios comportamentos. Conclui-se que a controvérsia é levantada em termos individuais, o que obstaculiza uma discussão global das dimensões políticas e coletivas implicadas.

Abstract The international technoscientific controversy on benzodiazepines, especially intense during the 1980s and 1990s, questioned the place of benzodiazepines in clinical practice because of its addictive potentiality and the abuse of physicians and patients. This article presents some results from a research that aimed to analyze the role of benzodiazepine controversy in medical, psychiatric and psychological practices in Uruguayan public health services. This research methodology was qualitative, combining a review of national academic articles (1960-2012), in-depth interviews with 45 professionals and two discussion groups. Content analysis was carried out using four axes: anxiety in clinic practice, prescription, relationship between pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment, and benzodiazepines valoration. We obtained a diachronic pictures of the academic controversy and we identified a conditional assessment of these medicines made by the professionals. This assessment implies: the recognition of positive and negative attributes of benzodiazepines, a controlled use of benzodazepines, and professionals and patients that must watch their own behaviors. We conclude that the controversy is presented mainly in individual terms, and this prevents a global discussion on the political and collective dimensions involved.

'Crackpots' and 'active researchers': The controversy over links between arXiv and the scientific blogosphere.

Controversies over string theory (collectively termed the 'string wars') intensified in 2005. Also in that year, the open-access preprint publisher arXiv instituted a new feature called a 'trackback'. This new feature enabled authors of blog posts discussing a paper on arXiv to leave a trackback (a link) to the post on the paper's abstract page on arXiv. The determination of which specific bloggers would have access to the feature generated a public controversy that was played out in the blogosphere. Although the community was in almost unanimous agreement that so-called 'crackpots' should not have access to the trackback feature, it was unable to reach a consensus as to how to define a 'crackpot' or an 'active researcher'. Blogs may provide a window into science in the making, yet this study shows that blogs confound categorization as permanent or ephemeral scholarly communication. The trackback feature was originally conceived to develop certain blog discourse as an alternative or complementary form of peer review. However, the high-energy physics community as a whole questions the ongoing function of the blog.

Who Is Afraid of Volume 1181 of the New York Academy of Sciences? Under Threat, the Nuclear Establishment Plays Dirty.

Following decades of an internationally coordinated cover-up, critical information about the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident, worldwide but particularly in Western and Eastern Europe, was made available through Volume 1181 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The book also contains unique, valuable data from the 3 most affected counties, and it suggests that consequences of the Chernobyl accident are far more serious than has been acknowledged. Many health problems are worsening, including those resulting from irreversible genetic damage. Given the threat that such information represents to the nuclear establishment, it was predictable that Volume 1181, of far higher scientific quality than the United Nations' flagship report The Chernobyl Forum, would meet with violent criticism. Since its publication in 2009, it has been misrepresented and discredited by the nuclear establishment and international health establishment - to the extent of making the absurd and false claim that the New York Academy of Sciences has in some way disowned its own publication. The New York Academy of Sciences defends publication of Volume 1181 on the grounds of its commitment to open discussion of scientific material and publication of material of scientific value.

Gould on Morton, Redux: What can the debate reveal about the limits of data?

Lewis et al. (2011) attempted to restore the reputation of Samuel George Morton, a 19th century physician who reported on the skull sizes of different folk-races. Whereas Gould (1978) claimed that Morton's conclusions were invalid because they reflected unconscious bias, Lewis et al. alleged that Morton's findings were, in fact, supported, and Gould's analysis biased. We take strong exception to Lewis et al.'s thesis that Morton was "right." We maintain that Gould was right to reject Morton's analysis as inappropriate and misleading, but wrong to believe that a more appropriate analysis was available. Lewis et al. fail to recognize that there is, given the dataset available, no appropriate way to answer any of the plausibly interesting questions about the "populations" in question (which in many cases are not populations in any biologically meaningful sense). We challenge the premise shared by both Gould and Lewis et al. that Morton's confused data can be used to draw any meaningful conclusions. This, we argue, reveals the importance of properly focusing on the questions asked, rather than more narrowly on the data gathered.

"Não é meu intuito estabelecer polêmica": a chegada da peste ao Brasil, análise de uma controvérsia, 1899 / "I do not wish to be controversial": the arrival of the plague in Brazil; analysis of a controversy, 1899

Analisa um debate trazido a público pelo Jornal do Commercio , entre agosto e setembro de 1899, envolvendo duas autoridades sanitárias, Nuno de Andrade, diretor-geral de Saúde Pública, e Jorge Pinto, diretor de Higiene e Assistência Pública do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. No cerne da questão as medidas tomadas pelo governo federal para evitar a chegada da peste bubônica ao Brasil, a partir de uma epidemia existente na cidade do Porto, Portugal. O referencial teórico para a análise foi a noção de campo de Pierre Bourdieu e os estudos sobre controvérsia científica de Bruno Latour.

This article analyzes a debate brought to the public arena by Jornal do Commercio newspaper in August and September 1899 involving two sanitation officials: Nuno de Andrade, Director-General of Public Health, and Jorge Pinto, Director of Hygiene and Public Welfare of the State of Rio de Janeiro. The issue in question was the measures taken by the federal government to prevent bubonic plague reaching Brazil from Porto, Portugal, where there was an epidemic. The theoretical framework for the analysis is Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of field, and Bruno Latour’s studies into scientific controversy.

Hansen versus Neisser: controvérsias científicas na 'descoberta' do bacilo da lepra / Hansen versus Neisser: scientific controversies over the 'discovery' of the bacillus of leprosy

Analisa o conturbado processo científico que levou à 'descoberta' do bacilo causador da lepra, na Europa, na segunda metade do século XIX, e que envolveu alguns dos principais nomes da ciência médica do período, como Robert Koch, Rudolf Virchow e Armauer Hansen. Compreendida como paradigma científico, tal 'descoberta' será aqui reexaminada historicamente através de fontes primárias ainda pouco trabalhadas na América Latina. Objetiva-se oferecer novos instrumentos de análise e de reflexão para a historiografia das ciências, posto que serão identificados aspectos culturais, sociais e mesmo nacionalistas na construção desse paradigma.

This paper analyzes the turbulent scientific process that led to the 'discovery' of the bacillus that causes leprosy, which occurred in Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century and which involved some of the leading names in medical science of the period, such as Robert Koch, Rudolf Virchow and Armauer Hansen. Understood as a scientific paradigm, this 'discovery' is reexamined here based on primary sources as yet only partially researched in Latin America. The scope of this paper is to provide new instruments for analysis and reflection for the historiography of the sciences, as the cultural, social and even nationalist aspects are identified in the construction of this paradigm.