How rhetoric confuses scientific issues

The use of emotionally laden words in the scientific literature, especially on controversial topics, tends to undermine objectivity. Readers begin to respond emotionally rather than rationally. To investigate this phenomenon on some systematic basis, we reviewed all the articles and letters published in two major medical journals in 1971 on the subject of commonly used psychoactive drugs, Many of these articles contained words used rhetorically rather than scientifically, which undoubtedly altered opinions or reinforced prejudices among many readers, words such as “alarming,” “abuse,” “addiction,” and “epidemic.” We believe that such rhetoric has no place in the scientific literature. It involves value judgments and not scientific evaluation, and as such concerns social and not scientific issues. We conclude, then, that authors must avoid language that persuades rather than explains. Moreover, editors must accept a special responsibility to prevent semantic abuses from creeping into their journals.