Document DDXjYd3baYd5NqaZDa0j7Exen

FILE NAME: ALCOA (ALC) DATE: 0000 DOC#: ALC046 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Published Editorial by Dr. Dinman - The Necessity for Civil Disputation GUEST EDITORIAL. . . the necessity for civil disputation . . . N ot infering . . . vices from the side a per son takes, though it be the contrary side of the question o f our own . . . giving merited honor to everyone, whatever opinion he may hold, with calm as to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are; exag gerating nothing to their discredit, keeping noth ing back which tells in their favor. This is the real morality of public discussion . . "On Liberty" John Stewart Mill In the relatively brief time since man emerged from barbarism , the developm ent o f a sense o f com m unity has becom e a hallm ark o f human progress. T he painfully achieved balance be tween individual desires or rights and the need to live in peace and harm ony in community slow ly evolved into the concept o f the Social C ontract. T his concept recognizes that because others also have rights to life and liberty that consequently they and ourselves need exercise restraint and forebearanee when th eir- and our -w an ts converge. This contract requiring mu tual consent, sustains diversity o f needs, opin ions and rights; it also im plies a m utually agreed upon restraint im posed upon com pletely unfettered expression o f individual desires. This fragile, unwritten document represents a flim sy barrier delicately poised between civilization and civil discord. T o rend it is the first step on the road back to barbarism . Coincident with the em ergence o f this con tract was the developm ent o f a Common l}aw tool fo r the resolution o f dispute, i.e., the A d versary System. G iven the inherently subjec tive nature o f human experience, only by dispassionate and com plete disclosure o f per ceptions o f reality-as seen b y the parties to such co n flid s-co u ld disputed human encount ers be resolved. B y necessity, in the legal setting, ultim ately dichotom ous decisions must emerge. The reality o f the judicial process de volves by necessity on one party's innocence or guilt, liability or non-liability. This, despite the reality o f human experience which clearly indi cates that elem ents o f error inevitably reside on both sides o f any m atter at question. But just w hat is the adversary system? If it is the depersonalized non-vituperative, non withholding presentation o f fact as perceived by ftrh party-tins is consistent with the scientific tradition o f publication and test by peer review. I f it is the uncivil converse-exaggerated, inten- A4 tionally offensive, designed to cast doubt upon the honor o f the opponent-the adversary sys tem descends to the bathotic level of games manship. It is not designed to find elusive truth; rather its end is solely to win, to vanquish. This " civilized" surrogate for com bat allows hedon istic expression fo r the verbal and provides them ego satisfaction. But in fulfilling these egocentric needs, it has no place in science. Further, it rents the fragile social contract that stands between the individual, the community and civil discord. W e have seen in the too recent past what the zealots' attribution of per sonal evil and vituperation imposes upon so ciety; their single-minded prescription for truth leads to proscription o f rights. Since the veneer o f civilization is thin, one cannot but view any uncivil assault upon the Social Contract which encompasses both rights and responsibilities as anything but a potentially retrogressive step. W hile carrying this potential menace for the social fabric, its intrusion into the body scien tific poses immediate destructive im plications. W hile this adversarial approach m ight be adequate-w ith some reservation-to the judicial system, its uncritical application is open to seri ous question when applied to matters suscepti ble to the quantification inherent in scientific debates. Certainly, if the courts could apply a consistent, s c ie n t ific a lly based quantitative yardstick to the business before them, applica tion o f the adversarial approach m ight be invalidated. H ow ever, the bench and bar pos sess no such tool; by contrast, scientific ques tions have an inherently quantifiable aspect. A ccordingly, thoughtless application of the ad versary system to matters which can be dealt with b y scientific m ethodologies would appear irrational. In actuality, many science-based discus sions ultim ately may revolve about honest dif ferences o f opinion, since most s c ie n tific hypotheses must admit the existence o f coun tervailing hypotheses. The validity of this ob servation is especially apparent to any student o f the standard-setting process. So, indeed, an uncorrupted adversary approach to the resolu tion o f such questions may be useful at an appropriate point in such discussion, or under limited circum stances. But to advocate indis crim inate use o f that system in the realm of science is inherently inim icable to the common weal and to the scientific community itself.' Bertram D . Dfeunao, M B . Alum inum Com pany o1 America President, Am erican Academy oi Occupational M edicine evei AONI' efficient < Then Respirati including ing dust! tionsysti fitters. U! can be u Thed Respira! fridges fumes, \ pesticid effective safety g piece si comfort t U .S Eye protection t