-
3. The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Scientific Revolutionary: Competing Characterizations of Dr. Bernard Fisher
- The University of Alabama Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
3 The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Scientific Revolutionary Competing Characterizations of Dr. Bernard Fisher On the morning of October 27, 2000, Dr. Bernard Fisher stood before a lectern in lecture rooms 5 and 6 of the University of Pittsburgh’s Scaife Hall. Just moments before, School of Medicine dean Dr. Arthur Levine had lauded Fisher as “one of the most influential scientists of our time.”Pronouncing the occasion a “once in a lifetime experience,”Levine told the assembled audience, scattered about the large auditorium in a sea of white coats, blue- green scrubs, and blazers, that they would “hear firsthand from one of the handful of individuals whose work in our own lifetimes has led to a paradigm shift in the way the human body is understood and to the way in which medicine is practiced.” Levine announced a list of Fisher’s awards—the American Cancer Society’s Medal of Honor, the American Surgical Association’s Medallion for Scientific Achievement, and so on— mentioning the “millions of women worldwide who had been affected” by research conducted under Fisher’s direction.1 Fisher’s return to Scaife Hall to deliver an invited “Legacy Laureate”address symbolically marked his reunification with his alma mater after his forced departure during the height of the Datagate scandal in 1994.2 It publicly reinforced his reputation as a scientific revolutionary—one of the most enduring and,as we shall see later in this chapter, ultimately misleading scientific personae of our time.3 Having chronicled the contested characterizations of Roger Poisson in chapter 2, this chapter unravels the struggle to define Fisher’s character in the wake of the Datagate scandal. Because of his iconic stature in the realm of cancer research, local and national newspaper coverage quickly seized on Fisher, and the Cancer Letter featured frequent updates on the man and his fate. The intense scrutiny of Fisher was justified, implied Health Facts, because “Dr. Fisher is held more accountable than Dr. Poisson.”4 In short 74 Chapter 3 order, the farrago of incidents and allegations that churned this controversy cohered into narrative form starring the character of science in general and the competing personae of Bernard Fisher in particular, rendering the integrity , trustworthiness, and very character of Fisher a predominant concern . Was he an overburdened researcher unwittingly caught in the crossfire of political battles beyond his control? Was he an arrogant administrator who imagined himself above scrutiny? Was he a “hero among us,”as representatives from the pharmaceutical giant Zeneca would later suggest?5 Was he a visionary so infatuated with the big picture that he forgot to oversee the everyday operations of his organization? Was he the victim of an overly zealous and unfair political campaign lobbed against big- name scientists? Fisher’s rhetorical performance as Legacy Laureate suggested the latter and thus signified a transformation from vilification to vindication, a dramatic reversal of the situation six years earlier when newspaper articles reported that Fisher had tumbled from stunning heights.6 The preoccupation with Fisher that marked the height of Datagate raises several questions concerning the rhetorical dynamics of science- based controversies .What factors encouraged the focus on Fisher’s character,and how did political contests over big science shape this frame? What were Fisher’s dominant personae, how were they scripted, and by whom? Was the fo cus on Fisher justified? And how did these personae influence the dynamics of the controversy and its outcomes? This chapter explores these questions by charting how Fisher’s competing personae vied for legitimacy in professional ,political,and public spheres,and by considering what these personae mean in terms of the status of scientific knowledge and thus, in Datagate, for the fate of breast cancer patients.In contrast to Roger Poisson’s dichotomous characterization as beneficent healer or career- minded fraud, conflicting countenances of Fisher abounded and revealed deeper tensions with scientific administration.I argue that three personae—the scientific revolutionary ,the beleaguered bureaucrat,and the reluctant apologist—competed for credence in the initial weeks of the Datagate controversy and were eventually supplanted by a fourth, the portrait of a tragic- hero- turned- vindicated- visionary. When viewed as a whole, these personae implicitly endorsed policy outcomes that were focused on purging science of individual transgressors while obscuring broader systemic reforms that could have more substantively addressed the concerns of patients and advocates. Because existing public narrations of Fisher’s life and character provided the backdrop for reworked constructions of his character in light...