OK, day 4, and I'm still not smoking (Hi, I'm John... Hi John). This is attempt number 247 or so, but one thing that has motivated this attempt is the danger of passive smoking to my as yet unsullied son, who lives with me (and has a sensible attitude to smoking - it's bad, and you should stop it Dad).
But the published evidence on passive smoking is equivocal. Or is it? In Nature this week is a report that funding from tobacco companies was given to a study on passive smoking (concluding against the claim that passive smoke is harmful) that is methodologically challenged.
Given the tobacco industry's cavalier approach to truth and scientific integrity, now being replayed, in many cases by the same individuals, by climate skepticism through Exxon instead of Phillip Morris, the question has been raised - should industry funding for tobacco related topics be banned by university administrations?
I think that there is a presumption that ought to be held by all administrators and researcher than private industry funding is prima facie suspect. Unless it can be shown that the interests of the industry or corporation are not biasing the research, private funding should not be accepted. This is problematic now, though, because as public funding is reduced or hedged about, often the only source of funding is private industry. What to do?
There are several cases in which private funding can be accepted with confidence. One is when it is not in the field of the industry or its affiliates. If MacDonalds wants to fund stem cell research, fine. If they want to fund nutritional research, not fine.
So if the industry wants to fund something within the purview of its core business, like McDonalds and nutrition, how to disinfect the funding? One way is to ensure that there are no conditions, other than probity, on the use of the funds, and the establishment of oversight bodies independent of the donor. Another is to see whether the industry has a vested interest in one outcome in particular. If IBM funds microprocessor research, they don't necessarily want silicon rather than gallium arsenide to be the active material. They just want better microprocessors. This won't bias the research. But if McDonalds wants to see their "food" as healthy, then that will bias, quite deeply, the research. It might be different, if Mickie D were prepared to revise their entire menu on the basis of the outcome of the research, but that is not likely to happen.
So My rule is - if it is private funding, then you have to show that it isn't tainted. Across the board.
Won't somebody fund research on how giving up smoking increases your sex drive? Please?
- Log in to post comments
Keep it up, don't lose courage and don't smoke anymore!
(I perfectly agree with everything else too about funding...
here in Canada our conservative government is cutting
funding left and right, it's making things tough in
the labs I work for... we've had to lay off some researchers...)
If you can stick it out a couple of weeks, you'll be past the worst of it, at least in my experience. I was at 2 packs a day when I quit, almost 15 years ago.
You might find it useful to keep something around that kills the munchies and gives you hands/mouth something to do. I found that salted peanuts in the shell worked very well (overlooking that fact that I smelled like a peanut butter sandwich for a few weeks).
Hang in there!
Get on a treadmill!
Seriously, even 5 minutes of athletic activity, plus plenty of water can go a long way towards curbing nicotine addiction. If you're lucky, maybe you'll get addicted to working out. As a scientist, you'll also enjoy the fact that you can apply research and observation to achieve a positive result! WORK OUT!
John Wilkins wrote:
You can do it, John.
Nearly five years tobacco-free here now. You're not saying a Pom can do what an Aussie can't, are you ? 8-)
And keep telling us how you're doing! I'm three months smoke-free now, after having tried every method known to man with no success. What worked for me was telling everyone I knew, every day, that I was still not smoking. My dad and I go to lunch almost every day, but even on the days we didn't dine together, I would call him and say, "17 days without a ciggy, Pop." His encouragement, and the daily encouragement from friends and family, got me through the worst of it.
Keep at it John. If I can do it you can do it.
Look, I try and try and try, but no matter how many times I try, I still can't get a tobacco industry grant.
Good luck. And have fun spending the money you're saving. Jason
Day 8. At around $12.50 per day, that's $100 saved. I may not have to sell my son after all.
John, could you do something like a weekly report (or a post after the critical period -which seems to be two weeks- is over), describing the experience? I'd like to make my (n log n)-attempt, but it would be useful to know beforehand how those two weeks will be. Anxiety? Insomnium? Just to know what to expect, and perhaps to optimally schedule the match (vacations? busy weeks? dunno!)
OK, at day 9, sweating somewhat more than the heat seems to require. Insomnia like you wouldn't believe - 2 hours last night and three nights in the past week with no sleep at all. The cravings are under control, so the real pain is the habitual behaviour - when I am done on the computer, I like to go outside for a smoke to think. That has to stop.
I'm doing this entirely without chemical aid, apart from the odd coffee. I'm eating a lot of sugary things like biscuits, but still eating healthily in other respects. Not motivated to do much exercise, and I'm coughing a lot as my lungs clear.
As I'm single right now, I can't even compensate with extra sex...
Stay tuned.
Wow, that was a fast response! I came back to add a word I regretted having forgotten in my comment ("please"), and lo, a report was already in! Thanks a lot... And keep fighting! It sounds worse than I thought, but of course it's worth it.