Leemon McHenry

C .H. Waddington was one of the founders of the Theoretical Biology Club at Cambridge in the 1930s whose members advanced a philosophy of biology, “organicism,” that would offer an alternative to the reductionism of mechanistic materialism and the obscurity of vitalism in coming to terms with the dynamic, interdependent, and purposeful character of life. This view was embraced in one form or another by E. S. Russell, John Scott Haldane, C. Lloyd Morgan, Lawrence J. Henderson, C. D. Broad, and Alfred North Whitehead. Waddington, in particular, was devoted to the integration of genetics, development, and evolution within the context of theoretical biology. This article explains the influence of Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy of organism on C. H. Waddington's work.

Biomedical ethics requires that clinical trial participants be accurately informed of the potential risks associated with investigational medical products. We found that the vaccine manufacturer Merck made false statements to the trial participants about the safety of Gardasil in its Future II HPV vaccine trial in Denmark. The clinical study protocol specified that safety testing was one of the trial’s primary objectives, but the recruitment brochure given to trial participants stated this was not the case, as allegedly the vaccine had already been proven safe in previous trials. The advertising material for the trial and the informed consent forms stated that the comparator was saline or an inactive substance, when, in fact, it contained Merck’s proprietary aluminum adjuvant which is highly immunogenic. Several trial participants experienced long-term disabling symptoms during the trial, also some randomized to the adjuvant “placebo” control group. In all cases, their serious adverse events were dismissed as unrelated to the study treatment by Merck’s clinical investigators. We demonstrate that Merck’s published statements about the safety of their proprietary aluminum adjuvant is contradicted by the research evidence. The use of adjuvants as “placebos” in vaccine clinical trials is unethical as it makes it difficult to discover serious vaccine harms.

In this paper, I examine some of the most important theories of modern physics that support the notion that events are the basic ontological units of reality. The two main themes of this paper include: (1) physical evidence in support of an ontology of events, and (2) the increasing unification of physical theory until we arrive at the current state of two highly successful theories that are presently disunified within the search for a comprehensive, unified theory. With the revolutionary developments in physics at the end of the nineteenth century, the mechanistic materialism of Newtonian physics began to break down and the ancient trinity of space, time and matter has been gradually replaced by the notion of the energy field. Physicists and philosophers who have held an event ontology specifically for its compatibility with electromagnetism, relativity theory and quantum mechanics include: Albert Einstein, Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, C. D. Broad, W. V. Quine, John Bell, Henry Stapp, and Milič Čapek among many others. For these theorists, events are the most fundamental entities of physical reality in contrast to the Aristotelian tradition which contends that events are secondary or dependent on physical substance.

ABSTRACT:Analytic philosophers have criticized A. N. Whitehead's metaphysics for being obscure, yet several such philosophers have espoused positions in metaphysics and philosophy of mind that were advanced by Whitehead in the 1920s. In this paper, we evaluate the merits and demerits of these criticisms by Bertrand Russell, W. V. Quine, Karl Popper, and others and then demonstrate the affinities and contrasts in the positions advanced by Galen Strawson, David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, and Whitehead regarding so-called ‘analytic panexperientialism’.

The advent of evidence-based medicine was a paradigm shift intended to provide a solid scientific foundation for medicine. The validity of this paradigm, however, depends on reliable data from clinical trials, mostly conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and reported in the names of senior academics. The release of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents into the public domain has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry-sponsored clinical trials are manipulated and misrepresented. Until this problem is corrected, evidence-based medicine is an illusion.

Corporate interests corrupt clinical trials, physicians and universities, undermining the foundation of evidence-based medicine. Philosopher Leemon McHenry and psychiatrist Jon Jureidini argue that the principles underlying Popper’s philosophy of science can protect clinical research from corporate malfeasance in a capitalist economy. Evidence-based medicine was a paradigm shift that is often praised as one of the greatest achievements of medicine in the twentieth century. This radical change in medical practice is based on epistemological hierarchies of evidence, from opinions of respected authorities, mechanistic reasoning and reports of expert committees at the bottom to various levels of observational studies and finally to randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials at the apex. Randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials, recognized as the gold standard of clinical experimentation, generally maintain their position in the hierarchies because when well-designed and well-conducted, they provide a basis for assessing harms and benefits, and help deter extravagant claims of efficacy and safety.

All’inizio del secolo XX, tre filosofi di Cambridge, Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, e Charlie Dunbar Broad, sostennero un’ontologia basata sugli eventi che si riteneva fosse compatibile con la recente teoria della relatività . Gli eventi, perciò, rimpiazzavano le sostanze aristoteliche in veste di componenti primari dell’universo – essi erano concepiti come unità di spazio-tempo che si estendevano spazio-temporalmente e che si sovrapponevano al campo elettromagnetico. Via via che la fisica moderna progrediva, le ontologie basate sugli eventi sembrarono guadagnare ulteriore supporto dal comportamento inaspettato delle particelle elementari descritte a livello quantistico. Dall’espansione dell’universo alle traiettorie delle particelle subatomiche, sembrava che tutto potesse essere sistematicamente interpretato in termini di eventi.

Nihilism, as most commonly understood, is the existential thesis that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Medical nihilism is the radical skepticism, indeed cynicism, about the objectivity, purpose or value of medical interventions. According to Stegenga, it is the view that we should have little confidence in the effectiveness of medical treatments. Stegenga provides a rigorous epistemological investigation into the evidence for medical interventions, one that is informed by the methods of analytical philosophy and a Bayesian formalism.

Medical ghostwriting is the practice in which pharmaceutical companies engage an outside writer to draft a manuscript submitted for publication in the names of “honorary authors,” typically academic key opinion leaders. Using newly-posted documents from paroxetine litigation, we show how the use of ghostwriters and key opinion leaders contributed to the publication of a medical journal article containing manipulated outcome data to favor the proprietary medication. The article was ghostwritten and managed by SmithKline Beecham, now GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Scientific Therapeutics Information, Inc. without acknowledging their contribution in the published article. The named authors with financial ties to GSK, had little or no direct involvement in the paroxetine 352 bipolar trial results and most had not reviewed any of the manuscript drafts. The manuscript was originally rejected by peer review; however, its ultimate acceptance to the American Journal of Psychiatry was facilitated by the journal editor who also had financial ties to GSK. Thus, GSK was able to take an under-powered and non-informative trial with negative results and present it as a positive marketing vehicle for off-label promotion of paroxetine for bipolar depression. In addition to the commercial spin of paroxetine efficacy, important protocol-designated safety data were unreported that may have shown paroxetine to produce potentially harmful adverse events.

We live in an age alleged devoted to evidence-based medicine. Evidence-based medicine, however, depends on reliable data and if the data are largely, if not completely, manipulated by the manufacturer of pharmaceuticals, then the data are not reliable. Evidence-based medicine is an illusion. This book raises and attempts to answer the following questions: What are the ways in which the profit motive of industry undermines the integrity of science? How is science protected from corporate malfeasance in a capitalist economy? Our particular focus is the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and medicine. We argue that medicine desperately needs to re-evaluate its relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and re-affirm the ideal of evidence-based medicine. In our view, Karl Popper’s philosophy of science, Falsificationism and Critical Rationalism, provides a rigorous conception of science required to preserve the integrity of the scientific basis of medicine against the commercial influences.

The first thing to note about the present work is that it is divided into twenty short chapters, all of which contain numbered sections averaging two to three pages in length. This organization adds to the concision and clarity of the book and works well with Heil’s attempt to present ideas in an unpretentious manner. The dust jacket tells us that the book is written in an accessible, nontechnical style that is intended for nonspecialists as well as seasoned metaphysicians. But despite the organization and flow of bite-sized nuggets, I doubt anyone with less than graduate training in analytical philosophy will understand the problems and issues. A brief survey of the contemporary philosophers who get the most discussion should confirm the point. This includes: C. B. Martin, D. M. Armstrong, Frank Jackson, David Chalmers, Sidney Shoemaker, E. J. Lowe, Donald Davidson, Saul Kripke, and Hilary Putnam.

In this brief but formidable monograph Dorothy Emmet presents a splendid account of causation woven around numerous contemporary discussions. The largest portion of this book is devoted to an analysis of the epistemological problems of describing events in terms of cause and effect. Here Emmet defines her position in relation to the views of Davidson, Mellor, Anscombe, O'Neill, Prichard, Hornsby and others. Her main task however is to "pass beyond the epistemology to a metaphysics underpinning it", and this she achieves with admirable clarity in the remainder of the book. As far as the latter is concerned, Emmet's views are strongly influenced by her former teacher, A. N. Whitehead, but unlike the followers of his process thought dominant in America today, she is more sympathetic to his views of nature developed in his middle period rather than those largely developed in Process and Reality. Furthermore, Emmet is more concerned to develop a substantial metaphysical position of her own rather than simply to expound Whitehead's doctrines.

Philosophy: The Classic Readings is a collection of accessible readings from the history of philosophy specifically intended for the introductory student. The readings were chosen for courses that focus on metaphysics and epistemology. Each reading contains a brief introduction to the philosopher's life and works, thought-provoking study questions, and a bibliography for further reading at the end of each chapter. The philosophers include Plato, Aristotle, Rene Descartes, John Locke, David Hume, Bertrand Russell and Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia.

Editorial independence is a bedrock principle of academic publishing. The growing domination of academic publishing by large, for-profit corporations threatens this independence. There is alarming evidence that large companies too often serve their own business interests and those of powerful clients rather than serving the scientific community and the general public. This evidence includes the publication of infelicitous commercial science and concealing scientific misconduct. We present two case studies in which the UK-based publisher Taylor & Francis interfered in the editorial process by blocking publication of legitimate criticism that had been reviewed and approved for publication by its specialized editors. The integrity of science depends in part on the transparency and intellectual honesty of all stakeholders. The widely acknowledged inadequacies of English libel law are reviewed as context for some of Taylor & Francis’s fearful decisions.

This thesis examines the affinities and contracts between A. N. Whitehead's process metaphysics and F. H. Bradley's Absolute Idealism. Whitehead drew upon Bradley's notion of experience in formulating his ontology, but disagreed sharply with Bradley on the status of relations. Whereas Bradley argued that relations and temporal transition are riddled with contradictions and cannot adequately characterize the nature of reality, Whitehead's interpretation of experience as happening in atomic or epochal units commits him to the reality of asymmetrical, temporal relations. Whitehead and Bradley share an opposition to the seventeenth-century cosmology which treated nature as a inert mechanism, but disagreed about the role of science in metaphysics. Bradley treated all science as dealing with appearances rather than reality. Whitehead formulated his metaphysics within the framework of modern physics, especially electromagnetism, relativity physics and quantum mechanics. This thesis ends with further comparisons between Bradley's Absolute and Whitehead's process theism.