This editorial discusses the relationship between oncology research and the shifting political climate in the United States over time. It notes that President Nixon's signing of the National Cancer Act in 1971 was considered progressive at the time, though few today recognize the political implications. The authors reflect on how political views in the U.S. tend to operate around a central point and can drive major changes through subtle shifts left or right. Oncology research must be aware of and adapt to changes in societal values and standards of ethical research as influenced by the pendulum of American democracy.

1. a SciTechnol journalEditorial
Schmidt and Brown, J Clin Exp Oncol 2015, 4:3
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-9110.1000e109
Journal of Clinical &
Experimental Oncology
All articles published in Journal of Clinical & Experimental Oncology are the property of SciTechnol, and is protected by
copyright laws. Copyright © 2015, SciTechnol, All Rights Reserved.International Publisher of Science,
Technology and Medicine
Relating the Pendulum of
Democracy with Oncology
Research
Christian Schmidt1
and Mark A Brown2-4
*
Abstract
It has been over 40 years since President Richard M. Nixon
signed the National Cancer Act. Considered radically progressive
by some in 1971, few today recognize the political implications
of this legislation for a conservative U.S. president. In retrospect,
the signing of the National Cancer Act highlights how closely most
U.S. politicians operate to political center, relative to their global
counterparts. Thus, the rest of the world is often mystified by the
ability of the pendulum of American democracy to drive revolutionary
events with global impacts, following a subtle swing to the left or
right of the political center. Herein, we reflect upon the relationship
between this pendulum of democracy and oncology research.
*Corresponding author: Mark A Brown, Department of Clinical Sciences,
Colorado State University, 801 Oval Drive, Campus Code 1052, Fort Collins, CO
80523-1052, USA, Tel: (970) 491-5782; E-mail: M.Brown@colostate.edu
Received: November 24, 2015 Accepted: November 26, 2015 Published:
November 30, 2015
the African race [...]” was “considered as a subordinate and inferior
class of beings” [3]? It should be noted that the 1856 decision was
reversed by the Supreme Court in the decision of the case Brown
v. Board of Education (1954). As another illustration of this point,
Justice David Souter delivered a speech on the occasion of the 2010
Harvard Commencement [4]. Here, Souter elaborated on the limits
of tools available to discern the meaning of phrases in a text, such as
the U.S. Constitution. Related to this is the charge of judicial activism.
Is judicial activism simply a result of the margins of error in a fair
reading of a text or is this charge grounded by a notion that judges
cannot “bend general structural elements to fit the morally antecedent
condition of non-discrimination” [5]?
What is the basis for assessments of this kind? Are these, by
nature, rooted in historical context or of attempts of “trying to stretch
the meaning of words beyond what was credible” [6]? Answers to
this problem are likely to affect how we educate the next generation
of oncology scholars to avoid “limited review” [5] or “sins of
omission”[7]. This, in turn, may drive disparities between current
and future standards for the ethical conduct of oncology research
[8]. In observing the political center as a slowly moving target, it
is not difficult to imagine a world in which the current systems for
oncology research are someday beyond the reach of the pendulum
of democracy. While the laws of science may be immune to evolving
interpretation, political opinion is an endless sea of ebb and flow. As
such, we must never assume that we are protected on our islands of
research. It is our responsibility, as cancer researchers, to watch the
tide and determine when to toss or pull anchor.
References
1. Cukierman A, Tommasi M (1998) When does it take a Nixon to go to
China? Am Econ Rev 88: 180-197.
2. Kotlowski DJ (1998) Richard Nixon and the Origins of Affirmative Action.
Historian 60: 523-541.
3. Scott v. Sandford (1856) 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 393.
4. Souter D (2010) Harvard Commence Remarks. Harvard Gazette May 27.
5. Cover RM (1982) The origins of Judicial Activism in the Protection of
Minorities. Yale L J 1287-1316.
6. Howe, 1990; http://www.webcitation.org/6a1B9XD5n.
7. Schmidt C, Brown MA (2015) The Sins of Omission. J Clin Exp Oncol 4:2.
8. Nelson SL, Brown MA (2012) Ensuring the Ethical and Responsible Conduct
of Oncology Research for the Next Generation. J Clin Exp Oncol 1:2.
Discussion
Growing up in a small town near the Baltic Sea made it easy for
me to grasp the concept of little boats in a big sea. It is this memory
of adolescence and youth that provides such an apt metaphor to
reflect upon recent developments and provide a rather personal view
on where our travels may take us. As with the great sea, to remain
true with this mental picture, small waves may provide a soothing
rocking of the boat, whereas their bigger counterparts invite one,
in not so subtle terms, to find shelter on the high ground. Waves
are encountered almost everywhere, from boom and bust in the
economy to the periodic movement of public opinion from one side
of the political center to the other. The last example provides a rich
ground to elaborate on select examples, albeit from the viewpoint
of a scholar with awareness of constitutional duties of a citizen. It
all starts with the terms used, in this case, “one side of the political
center.” Different writers may very well have different opinions of
what this phrase means. We shall, for the sake of keeping this analysis
reasonably short and simple, not dive into the tools of textual and
contextual determination of shades in meaning. How, do we ask, can
we determine what is meant by the phrase “one side of the political
center” when the concept of the “political center” can be viewed
very much like a moving target. Is, for instance, the presidency of
Richard Nixon to be seen as “right of the political center” [1] by
the standard applied at the time of election? If one is to take this a
step further, are Nixon’s acts, such as paving the way for affirmative
action [2] to be seen as “left of the center” if measured against, say, a
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1856 in which “A free negro of
Author Affiliations Top
1
Department of Polymers for Biomedical Engineering, Fraunhofer-Institute
Applied Polymer Research (IAP), USA
2
Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, USA
3
Cell and Molecular Biology Program, Colorado State University, USA
4
Colorado School of Public Health, Colorado State University, USA