Mapping Misconduct: Demarcating Legitimate Science from "Fraud" in the B-06 Lumpectomy Controversy

By Keranen, Lisa | Argumentation and Advocacy, Fall 2005 | Go to article overview

Mapping Misconduct: Demarcating Legitimate Science from "Fraud" in the B-06 Lumpectomy Controversy


Keranen, Lisa, Argumentation and Advocacy


On March 13, 1994, a front-page Chicago Tribune headline announced "Fraud in Breast Cancer Study: Doctor Lied on Data for Decade" (Crewdson, 1994, p. A1). This journalistic intervention into the highly politicized world of federally funded breast cancer research triggered an extended science-based controversy that pivoted around allegations of misconduct in the nation's premier breast cancer research. The research in question concerned a portion of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project known as the B-06 Protocol. This large-scale, multisite clinical trial had demonstrated that breast-conserving lumpectomy, followed by irradiation, was as effective as breast-removing mastectomy for early-stage breast cancers. This finding, published in the 1980s in the authoritative New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), was heralded as a revolution in women's health care; it would inform treatment decisions of tens of thousands of North American women and their health care providers (Altman, 1996; Fisher, Bauer et al., 1985; Fisher, Costantino et al., 1993; Fisher, Redmond et al., 1989). Following revelations that one of the study's lead investigators had falsified B-06 data, "all hell broke loose" (Twedt & Carpenter, 1994, p. A6). (1) The ensuing saga of misdeeds and miscommunication in the nation's landmark breast cancer study exposed fissures in the scientific community's sense of legitimate scientific practice and undermined public confidence in clinical research. Careers plummeted. Public fury mounted. Scientists, politicians, and patients were left scrambling to pick up the pieces.

Contemporary controversies such as the B-06 imbroglio highlight how, far from being immutable, standards of "legitimate" scientific practices are negotiated in contested cases that expose--and provide opportunity to resolve--conflicting senses of appropriate practice (see Lynoe, Jacobsson, & Lundgren, 1999). As stakeholders struggled to make sense of the controversy's implications for life-and-death breast cancer treatment decisions, their arguments generated implicit maps of legitimate scientific practice that rhetorically constructed boundaries between science and its stakeholders and between public and technical realms of expertise (Gieryn, 1999). These maps are deeply consequential for participants because they can affect the progression, meanings, and outcomes of science-based controversies.

In this essay, I analyze how--and with what consequence--the borders between the technical and the public were demarcated argumentatively in the B-06 lumpectomy controversy. Drawing from Thomas F. Gieryn's (1999) critical metaphor of "cultural cartographies of science," I trace the production of implicit maps of scientific practice across prominent medical journals, newspaper accounts, and Congressional hearings in the months immediately following public disclosure of problems with B-06 data. More specifically, I argue that the discourse of patients, lawyers, journalists, researchers, and elected officials produced multiple and competing maps of the scientific terrain that, together, rhetorically constituted the borders between the public and the technical in ways that maintained institutional jurisdiction over scientific decision making and missed a crucial opportunity to address stakeholder concerns more meaningfully. This argument is not to imply that participants did not recognize and maintain distinctions between the technical and public spheres of argument. Rather, it is to suggest that at various moments during the controversy, participants actively renegotiated the public and technical in ways that matter for both participants and scholars of argument.

In order to explore the consequences of particular maps of scientific practice in the B-06 lumpectomy controversy, I begin by reviewing the argument spheres literature as it pertains to science-based controversy studies. I then examine the B-06 controversy and the implications of four dominant maps that emerged during its initial months. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Mapping Misconduct: Demarcating Legitimate Science from "Fraud" in the B-06 Lumpectomy Controversy
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.