Habermas on Acid: A Rhetorical Analysis of a Scientific Controversy by E. Jonathan Arnett, BA, MATC A Dissertation In TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION & RHETORIC Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved Dr. Amy Koerber, Chair Dr. Ken Baake Dr. Fred Kemp Dr. Susan Lang Fred Hartmeister Dean of the Graduate School August, 2008 Copyright 2008, E. Jonathan Arnett Texas Tech University, E. Jonathan Arnett, August 2008 Acknowledgments As a writer, I’m the type who works best in magnificent solitude, and most of this dissertation was completed that way, with me slumped in a chair, brow furrowed, as I either stared a computer screen or shuffled through well-thumbed stacks of photocopies. Even so, this dissertation is anything but a solo effort; it would not have been possible to complete this project without the companionship and assistance of a number of remarkable individuals whom I wish to thank for their friendship, support, critical commentary, and for generally putting up with me. Thanks to my dissertation director, Dr. Amy Koerber. Your suggestions and commentary were always prompt and well-considered, and your assistance was invaluable in guiding me through the writing process. I couldn’t have asked for a better committee chair. Thanks to my committee members, Drs. Ken Baake, Fred Kemp, and Susan Lang. Your encouragement throughout my time at Texas Tech has been an inspiration. I can only hope to be as helpful to my students as you have been to me. Thanks to my parents, Carol and Curtis Arnett. You’ve been tremendously encouraging and supportive. Your letters from home helped more than you will ever know. Thanks to the Herd, particularly Rajiv: Thank you for keeping my lap warm on chilly winter nights. You left fur everywhere, but that’s a small price for adoring looks, purring, ankle-vulturing, and flexing toes, and I’m more than happy to pay. Thanks to my friends, both here in Lubbock and in other parts of the world: Jen Ross, Ana Krahmer, Susan and Ed Youngblood, the staff at the Aquatics Center, the Old Skool Penns, Chad Covey, Nate and JoAnn McKimpson, the crew at the Nerd Board, Joe Howe, William and Yingqin Carney, Fawn Musick, and Lonie McMichael. Special thanks go to Derek Ross, who’s always up for a friendly argument about music and/or a well-thought- out academic question. And most of all, many many thank yous to Laura Palmer, who made the whole enterprise possible and bearable. ii Texas Tech University, E. Jonathan Arnett, August 2008 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii Table of Contents iii Abstract vi Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Texts to be Analyzed and Theoretical Framework 9 Texts to be Examined 9 Theoretical Framework 10 Contributions to the Field 17 Political, Social, and Ethical Concerns 17 Chapter Previews 23 Chapter 2: Literature Review of Habermas and Rhetoric of Science 23 Chapter 3: Methods 24 Chapter 4: Results, Part I – Cohen, Marinello, & Back (1967) 24 Chapter 5: Results, Part II – Irwin & Egozcue (1967) 24 Chapter 6: Results, Part III – The LSD-Chromosome Damage Stream of Investigation 24 Chapter 7: Results, Part IV – The LSD-Birth Defects Stream of Investigation 24 Chapter 8: Conclusions 25 Chapter 2: Literature Review of Habermas and Rhetoric of Science 26 Communicative Action 26 Comprehensibility 27 Truth 28 Truthfulness/Sincerity 32 Rightness/Appropriateness 34 List of Specific Criteria 36 Comprehensibility 36 Truth 36 Truthfulness/Sincerity 37 Rightness/Appropriateness 37 Communicative Action and Scientific Discourse 37 Absence of Coercion 38 iii Texas Tech University, E. Jonathan Arnett, August 2008 Authors as Interlocutors 42 Chapter Summary: Habermas and Rhetoric of Science 44 Chapter 3: Methods Chapter 46 Description of Documents to be Examined 46 Starting the Story 47 Summary of 1967 56 Analytic Framework: Distortion in Scientific Articles 57 Intolerable Distortion 58 Historical Example of Intolerable Distortion 64 Habermasian Analysis of Scientific Discourse 69 Analytic Structure 69 Chapter Summary: Research Methods 79 Chapter 4: Results, Part I – Cohen, Marinello, & Back (1967) 81 Forecast of Chapter Contents 81 Article Analysis: Cohen, Marinello, & Back (1967) — Chromosomal Damage in Human Leukocytes Induced by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide 83 Introduction Section 84 Methods Section 94 Results and Discussion Sections 99 Chapter Summary: Cohen, Marinello, & Back (1967) 102 Chapter 5: Results, Part II – Irwin & Egozcue (1967) 103 Article Analysis: Irwin & Egozcue (1967) — Chromosomal Abnormalities in Leukocytes from LSD-25 Users 103 Introduction Section 103 Methods Section 108 Results and Discussion Sections 118 Outside Influences 124 Chapter Summary: Irwin & Egozcue (1967) 126 Chapter 6: Results, Part III – The LSD-Chromosome Damage Stream of Investigation 127 Analytic Synopsis 128 The LSD-Chromosome Damage Story 129 iv Texas Tech University, E. Jonathan Arnett, August 2008 September 25, 1967 — Clinical Value of LSD Questioned; Physical Damage Reported — Journal of the American Medical Association 129 October 27, 1967 — Leukocytes of Humans Exposed to Lysergic Acid Diethylamide: Lack of Chromosomal Damage — Loughman, Sargent, & Israelstam 135 November 1967 — Nonpsychic Effects of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide — Hirschhorn & Cohen 144 November 16, 1967 — In Vivo and In Vitro Chromosomal Damage Induced by LSD-25 — Cohen, Hirschhorn, & Frosch 150 Chapter Summary: LSD and Chromosome Damage 160 Chapter 7: Results, Part IV –The LSD-Birth Defects Stream of Investigation 162 The LSD-Birth Defects Story 163 July 28, 1967 — LSD: Injection Early in Pregnancy Produces Abnormalities in Offspring of Rats — Alexander, Miles, Gold, & Alexander 163 September 15, 1967 — Lysergic Acid Diethylamide: Effect on Embryos — Auerbach & Rugowski 167 September 25, 1967 — Clinical Value of LSD Questioned; Physical Damage Reported — Journal of the American Medical Association 171 October 13, 1967 — Congenital Malformations Induced by Mescaline, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, and Bromolysergic Acid in the Hamster — Geber 172 October 27, 1967 — LSD: Effects on Offspring — DiPaolo, Alexander 174 November 1967 — Nonpsychic Effects of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide — Hirschhorn & Cohen 176 November 16, 1967 — In Vivo and In Vitro Chromosomal Damage Induced by LSD-25 — Cohen, Hirschhorn, & Frosch 181 Chapter Summary: LSD and Birth Defects 183 Chapter 8: Conclusion 184 Major Findings 184 Results Specific to Publications from 1967 184 Implications for Rhetoric of Science Studies 186 Implications for Scientist Authors 190 Future Research 190 Limitations 191 Sample of Publications 191 Habermas’s Theory 192 Summary 194 References 195 v Texas Tech University, E. Jonathan Arnett, August 2008 Abstract This dissertation contains a analysis of 11 publications that appeared in scientific journals in the year 1967 and dealt with the potential for LSD to cause chromosome damage and/or birth defects. These publications were analyzed using the ideal speech communication situation, a theory developed by the German social philosopher, Jürgen Habermas. Within these texts, the existence and influence of distorted communication, as defined by Habermas, indicates when and where open, free communication broke down and influenced the course of scientific discussion. This dissertation’s analysis of the articles from 1967 shows that the publications contained communicative distortion, and the communicative distortion provides more than enough reason to doubt both the scientific validity of the reported LSD-chromosome damage and LSD-birth defects links and the reasoning behind the scientific consensus emerging at the end of 1967 that LSD did cause chromosome damage and birth defects. In terms of technical communication scholarship, this dissertation’s analysis demonstrates that Habermas’s theory of the ideal speech communication situation can be used as an analytical tool for rhetoric of science studies and contribute to the further development of the field. vi Texas Tech University, E. Jonathan Arnett, August 2008 Chapter 1: Introduction In 1967, an article titled “Chromosomal Damage in Human Leukocytes Induced by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide” (Cohen, Marinello, & Back, 1967) appeared in the journal Science. Its authors reported an in vitro study in which they determined LSD caused breakages in human leukocyte (white blood cell) chromosomes at twice the rate of cells that had not been exposed to LSD. Shortly thereafter, a similar study, “Chromosomal Abnormalities in Leukocytes from LSD-25 Users” (Irwin & Egozcue, 1967) appeared, in which the authors reported chromosome breakage in the leukocytes of LSD users. Later in 1967, studies appeared that reported birth defects in rodents resulting from exposure to LSD. News of these studies’ results entered the public consciousness through newspaper and magazine stories, and the news “created a sensation among LSD ‘users’” (Kato & Jarvik, 1969, p. 42). Articles trumpeting the news that LSD could cause chromosome damage and birth defects appeared in national magazines, • Saturday Evening Post, “The hidden evils of LSD”(Davidson, 1967); • McCall’s, “LSD: Danger to unborn babies” (Brecher, 1967); nationally prominent newspapers, • The New York Times o “LSD peril found in tests on rats” (Brody, 1967); o “Hallucinogenic drugs: I; Congenital defects to offspring added to peril to the mind and personality” (Rusk, 1967); • The Los Angeles Times o “Doctors caution users of drugs” (Alvarez, 1967); o “Harmful LSD, alcohol” (Dickerson,