Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
compelling questions and difficult answers, November 7, 2005
Dar and Frenk's " A Critique of Nicotine Addiction" is a "research" text in the truest sense of the term. Their stated mission is to take a firmly entrenched belief-- that it is nicotine in tobacco that is the cause of addiction-- and then go back and look again at volumes of data that contributed to that belief. What they present, however, is somewhat shocking. Dar and Frenk suggest the the nicotine addiction hyposthesis, as it is known, is indefensible based on the scientific data they have researched and reviewed (over 700 studies, according to their counts). What is suspected, alternatively, is that other factors are in play. On the macroscopic level, they suggest strong political and social biases play a great part. On the microscopic level, the indiviudal level, they suggest that the social biases actually deceive people into believeing they are chemically addicted to nicotine, thus, paradoxically,making it more difficult to quit.
Dar and Frenk's text, and their conclusions, sent a large ripple, if albeit a brief one, through the addiction research community. Most notably, there was a published correspondence between the editors of the journal "Addiction" and Dar and Frenk regarding their text. The editors at "Addiction" suspected and alleged that Dar and Frenk received funds from the tobacco industry and utlimately failed to disclose this as a conflict fo interest. Dar and Frenk, conversely argued that their position was based on a review of existing data and not novel research, and that this data was transparent to all in the scientific community. Further, they argued that other researchers failed to disclose possible conflicts of interest, such as those researchers who received funds from major pharmaceutical companies who manufacture smoking cessations products. If this collegial quibbling reveals anything, it supports Dar and Frenk's position that scientific research- at least social science research- is less objective than we would like to believe.
This text is a great read for those interested in research, primarily, and the subject matter secondly. The controversial nature of the subject, though, makes it worth reading (if the subject were something less controversial, it could be read as very dry). Since the text was written with the scientific community in mind, it of course will not appeal to a broad audience, which is unfortuante, since the claims that are made are of great social importance with regard to the chasm between what science says, what is true, and how the public tells the difference between the two.
|
|
|
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Funny..., November 14, 2001
those night sweats and the jittery feeling for days, along with that ever-present craving must have been my imagination!
|
|
|
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The government exposed, December 26, 2000
This book shows that nicotine is not addictive in spite of what government agencies and prominent scientists have been telling the public for years. I wonder whether other myths endorsed by the US government are able to withstand the intelligence of Frenk and Dar.Gonen.
|
|
|
|
See all 31 books this book cites
