CDC gets list of forbidden words

[Valentijn]

Epidemiology is an established principle of modern medicine and works pretty well thanks without the need for spurious notions such as diversity tagged on.

Epidemiology merely tells us who has heart attacks. It doesn't tell us that diverse groups (based on gender in this case) have very diverse symptoms. To accurately inform doctors that those diverse groups have diverse symptoms, research into the diverse groups is first necessary.

 

[Barry]

I think as @Allele said earlier, the key issue is absolutely not what words/phrases are being banned, but simply that any normal non-abusive ones are being banned at all ... in "the land of the free". Feels like it heralds some kind of Science Inquisition, heralding who-knows-what other inquisitions. Will the words of the Star-Spangled Banner become lost to history? Or still sung as a cruel irony to what was lost?

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
...
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

[My bold]

 

[Wonko]

It's both quite scary and hilarious - at the same time.

I note that they could also have banned the word "disease", it's so negative, with no mention of the personal growth potential, for the disease, or of profit. "Centre" is also problematic, it's too divisive, the word positively screams it, and as for "control"? Well they probably feel they should keep that, at least as a firm, cuddly and above all, orange concept..

So possibly the revised name for the CDC could be "The department for the absolute greatest all inclusive opportunity for control of growth, but not in a negative way"

IMO it doesn't matter which words they are banning, it's what the motivation is behind banning any that's problematic.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Epidemiology merely tells us who has heart attacks. It doesn't tell us that diverse groups (based on gender in this case) have very diverse symptoms. To accurately inform doctors that those diverse groups have diverse symptoms, research into the diverse groups is first necessary.

Rubbish, @Valentijn, epidemiology has always included breakdown by gender and race. That is how we know that more men than women died in the great Spanish flu epidemic.

This business of 'male dominated research' is loony.
Most medical graduates in the UK are now female with a higher than average proportion of muslims.
Most of the staff in my old clinical department were female.
All of my research team over the years were women, bar two.
75% of the patients we studied were women, because they had RA.
All of the patients I hand picked to offer the first chance to have rituximab were women with 40% from ethnic minorities.
We have recently done a study on the prevalence of anti-citrulline antibodies in female diabetic women in comparison to men to see if there is the same correlation with coronary disease and there is not.
And so on.

I am totally committed to equal treatment of every human being. I am way far out left of Jeremy Corbyn on most issues. But I find that 'diversity' is almost always used by people with a political agenda that is actually based on prejudice - like the idea that all medical science is done by men on men. My daughter was debarred from her chosen profession because the gate keeper wanted people who were more 'diverse'. How can a person be diverse?

Male chauvinism is a very real problem but to ascribe into people like me a priori is prejudice pure and simple.

We should not make a meal of this because in reality we all agree that there should be no prejudice in science.

I guess my concern is that the usual use of diversity is an example of what Trump would like to replace science-based with: 'science in consideration with community standards and wishes'. A characteristic of Trump is that he tries to stop other people playing the game he wants to play.

 

[Marco]

I'm pretty sure medical research already addresses issues such as gender; ethnicity etc in fact I just googled 'heart attack symptoms in ...' and got men; women; women over 60 etc.

It seems they've pretty much got in covered.

ETA - I see Jonathan beat me to it (much more comprehensively).

 

[Valentijn]

Rubbish, @Valentijn, epidemiology has always included breakdown by gender and race.

Of course it does - I didn't claim otherwise. But it still doesn't include diverse symptoms in diverse populations, as far as I can see. And I'm not sure why having a word for "epidemiology" would mean a word like "diversity" shouldn't be used when talking about epidemiology or anything else. As others have said, it certainly is not a euphemism for black in the US.

Some people seem to be objecting to the concept of (deliberate?) diversity in the workforce, which is a completely different discussion/rant.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Of course it does - I didn't claim otherwise. But it still doesn't include diverse symptoms in diverse populations, as far as I can see. And I'm not sure why having a word for "epidemiology" would mean a word like "diversity" shouldn't be used when talking about epidemiology or anything else. As others have said, it certainly is not a euphemism for black in the US.

Some people seem to be objecting to the concept of (deliberate?) diversity in the workforce, which is a completely different discussion/rant.

It is just that there is no reason to us the word 'diversity' in biomedical science because it is a term for a pseudoquantity that has no relevance other than to politics. I can well see diverse being used. But what is the 'diversity' of three white women a black man and a pussy cat? Is it 9.37? It isn't actually a scientific term at all. Why would anyone want to use it in a biomedical context? Issues about differences between morbidity and treatment between groups are not a matter of diversity, they are a matter of inequality, which needs fixing. Diversity is nearly always used with the implication that it is a good thing. Why? Why is a mix of different people better than a group of similar people? All people are equally valuable. The relevant word for epidemiology is representative - which why we use population based cohorts. We do not try to maximise 'diversity' of cohorts. We try to make them representative.

Maybe someone should browse through CDC documents to see if they have ever used 'diversity' in a way that makes scientific sense!!

 

[Wonko]

So why explicitly ban it? If, apparently, not for scientific reasons then it may be for "political" ones. Is this approach a good one for a "scientific" institution to be constrained by? What's next?

 

[Trish]

Well, they're obviously afraid people might start talking about the diversity of microorganisms in the microbiome, or the diversity of diseases studied...

To me diversity is just a word like any other that can be useful in a variety of contexts. That's why it seems to me to be loopy to ban its use.

As for the alternative phraseology of science based, or evidence based...
Words fail me.

By the way, @Jonathan Edwards, I take your point about you personally not being prejudiced against women or ethnic groups, and ensuring that you sampled from the relevant populations in your research. I don't think any of us here would accuse you of prejudice of any kind. But you are a remarkable human being (that's not sarcastic, it's what I think). Not everyone is as fair and open minded as you.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

So why explicitly ban it? If, apparently, not for scientific reasons then it may be for "political" ones. Is this approach a good one for a "scientific" institution to be constrained by? What's next?

I am certainly not suggesting any banning. I just think that science-based and evidence-based and fetus are rather more useful terms than diversity. And Trump gets votes by waving words like diversity in front of his supporters. On the Guardian today someone is reported as having said how important it was to able to use words like diversity and transgender, not apparently bothered about science-based or evidence-based or fetus. Trump's team will love that. A few more votes to stop these lefties. OK one can try to be fair and rational but it seems that almost half the USA loves Trump's diversity bashing. Why score an own goal?

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

By the way, @Jonathan Edwards, I take your point about you personally not being prejudiced against women or ethnic groups,... But you are a remarkable human being (that's not sarcastic, it's what I think). Not everyone is as fair and open minded as you.

Very kind of you Trish but I am the norm. Male dominated research on males simply does not exist at least in the UK. Far fewer resources have gone into prostate cancer than breast cancer. Far fewer into ankylosing spondylitis than lupus.

 

[chrisb]

I am not at all sure even about "science-based" and "evidence-based".

It allows for the passing off of ideas based on poor science and unpersuasive evidence. Poor evidence may still be evidence good enough for some.

 

[Wonko]

I am certainly not suggesting any banning. I just think that science-based and evidence-based and fetus are rather more useful terms than diversity. And Trump gets votes by waving words like diversity in front of his supporters. On the Guardian today someone is reported as having said how important it was to able to use words like diversity and transgender, not apparently bothered about science-based or evidence-based or fetus. Trump's team will love that. A few more votes to stop these lefties. OK one can try to be fair and rational but it seems that almost half the USA loves Trump's diversity bashing. Why score an own goal?

Maybe I've got this all wrong? I was under the impression the directive had come down from upon high, presumably the administration, that certain words were now forbidden for the CDC to use? One of those words was "diversity", other words were mentioned. I don't care what the words mentioned were.

I suspect that arguments around precisely which words are better than others, more useful, less useful, for inclusion on a banned words list, are specious, and entirely distract from the point by accepting that a banned word list is, as it exists, necessary, it's not at all like a proclamation coming down stating that all employees must prostrate themselves every time a more senior employee is in the room - arguments about whether eye contact is permitted are specious as the underlying assumption/requirement is not, currently, culturally valid.

edit - doesn't the USA have rules specifically relating to freedom of speech? Or does this not apply to government agency employees?

 

[Barry]

It is just that there is no reason to us the word 'diversity' in biomedical science because it is a term for a pseudoquantity that has no relevance other than to politics. I can well see diverse being used. But what is the 'diversity' of three white women a black man and a pussy cat? Is it 9.37? It isn't actually a scientific term at all. Why would anyone want to use it in a biomedical context? Issues about differences between morbidity and treatment between groups are not a matter of diversity, they are a matter of inequality, which needs fixing. Diversity is nearly always used with the implication that it is a good thing. Why? Why is a mix of different people better than a group of similar people? All people are equally valuable. The relevant word for epidemiology is representative - which why we use population based cohorts. We do not try to maximise 'diversity' of cohorts. We try to make them representative.

Maybe someone should browse through CDC documents to see if they have ever used 'diversity' in a way that makes scientific sense!!

Taken me a little while to get my head round this, but if I understand you right then I agree.

(This does all take the thread off-topic, but it's a very valid and interesting discussion nonetheless, so may end up in its own thread).

I think what you are saying is that though science must not be afraid to embrace the notion of drawing from diverse demographics, science must not be obligated to do so; contravening either of these could introduce contrived selection criteria etc, and thereby bias. Bye bye science.

 

[zzz]

I was under the impression the directive had come down from upon high, presumably the administration, that certain words were now forbidden for the CDC to use?

Yes, these are the facts as I understand them. It seems almost certain, based on recent history, that this directive has the approval of the president (either implicit or explicit), both because it accords completely with views that he has stated many times, and importantly, because he publicly tweets whenever anyone in his administration does something of this magnitude that he doesn't like.

doesn't the USA have rules specifically relating to freedom of speech?

Yes, this is part of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and has been since 1791. Freedom of speech is considered to be extremely important in the US. However, the scope of the First Amendment, and specifically the Freedom of Speech clause, has been expanded significantly over the years, and was not important in American life until well into the 20th Century. (See History of the First Amendment for further details.) The actual text of the First Amendment is as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that this is a very limited freedom of speech, which evolved through Supreme Court decisions over the entire history of the U.S. into what it is today. A brief history of its evolution and scope can be found in Wikipedia.

Or does this not apply to government agency employees?

There are many exceptions to freedom of speech. For example, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker or is an employer, so these exceptions would appear to apply to the CDC case.

 

[Forbin]

I am not at all sure even about "science-based" and "evidence-based".

It allows for the passing off of ideas based on poor science and unpersuasive evidence. Poor evidence may still be evidence good enough for some.

Yes, I'm sure that the proponents of LP are gratified that they can now claim that its use in children is "science- and evidenced-based" in the wake of the SMILE trial.

I'm also pretty certain that the CDC once regarded its CBT and GET recommendations to have been "science/evidence based" as well.

The relatively recent use of such terms seems intended to convey "authority," but it is the nature of science to be open to challenge and, thus, self-correcting. Appeals to authority run counter to this. Our knowledge is not improved by conviction, but by skepticism.

I really don't see why terms such as "approved" or "recommended" are insufficient to the task of identifying approved and recommended treatments.

 

[Alvin]

To accurately inform doctors that those diverse groups have diverse symptoms, research into the diverse groups is first necessary.

Indeed, this reminds me of this article that i read a while back
https://thinkprogress.org/scientist...bodies-because-they-get-periods-3fe9d6c39268/

 

[Inara]

The authors of the editorial, all researchers from the U.S. and the U.K., point to a 2014 review of thousands of sports and exercise studies that found that of over 6 million participants, only 39 percent were women.

Isn't 39% a relatively good quote?

 

[JamBob]

There have been (at least historically) issues with cohorts in research not being representative, whether that be research into MI excluding women from trials or animal studies where researchers mainly use male animals as it is believed that fluctuating hormones in females would create too much "noise" in the research.

Seems like the animal issue still persists today to some degree..... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44660766_Males_still_dominate_animal_studies

Mr Trump is just highlighting all these words as a dog-whistle to delight his followers.

 

[Snow Leopard]

There have been (at least historically) issues with cohorts in research not being representative, whether that be research into MI excluding women from trials or animal studies where researchers mainly use male animals as it is believed that fluctuating hormones in females would create too much "noise" in the research.

Seems like the animal issue still persists today to some degree..... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44660766_Males_still_dominate_animal_studies

Excluding women from trials or not testing different dosages (where relevant) in women vs men are certainly valid problems. Historically there have been such biases even if this has changed/is changing now (according to the claims made by Jonathan).

But who really cares about lack of females in animal studies where male/female is not central to the mechanism? The gap between animal to human is far greater than the gap between men and women. Everything has to be replicated in humans anyway, many findings from animal studies reported in the literature do not turn out to be useful in humans. So it does not matter much that female animals are not used.