The language of war and the rise of the medical-industrial-complex

The narratives that political leaders and stakeholders use to tell a story can have many components. Socio-economic statistics, religious and nationalistic images all may contribute to the narrative soup, with varying degrees of persuasion. One of the most common and effective narrative tools has been the language of conflict and war. Images of war have been used by poets and presidents to bring tears of pride or tears of sadness to mass audiences. Although these days, Presidents usually use professional bards or speech writers to help tailor their message, the language of war remains. Warlike analogies have been used to rally soldiers and scientists alike to the defense of hearth and home. Scientists were key players in Allied dominance during the World Wars and their contributions did not go unnoticed.

With the recent rise of the National Institute of Health (NIH) over the past several decades, we see similar language as endemic within the system. The NIH currently receives more basic research funding than any other agency, including the Department of Defense. It should be no surprise that the imagery of war is used to inspire and defend budgetary allocations within what might be called the Medical-industrial-complex.

Just as the role of scientists was fundamentally transformed by two World Wars, so was the role of medical professionals. While there is a distinction between medical practitioners and medial researchers, they share a common language when speaking of conquering disease or other public health concerns. The wars against cancer, obesity, and heart disease have raged just as fiercely as any other geo-political conflict. Instead of using rifles and body armor, they use statistics and a sense of public health urgency to fight their particular medical battles. The language of war helps get the conflict funded, but who benefits in the end?

As private funding for research and development has increased, one might question where the societal safeguards have gone? Do the best practices that were developed with government oversight still exist? After the Second World War, the role of scientists shifted more toward applied research. Government involvement in this research funding process inherently provided the assumption of public stewardship. Scientists didn’t have to worry about the application of their research because someone in government already had that figured out for them.

Combine the language of war and medical statistics together, then put them on stage with market-driven frameworks and societal good becomes endangered. These powerful tools may be used outside the realm of good governance for purely profit-driven motives. With networks of unregulated private capital increasingly funding research, scientists may come to another defining moment.

Unlike the Sputnik moment recently resurrected in the State of the Union address, we have a more subtle, pivotal transformation taking place in the medical science sector. The language of war is still present in the battle against xyz disease, but the tactics are changing. Just at the military uses more technological solutions in warfare, so has the medical industry come to rely upon technical solutions to promote public health. The incentive to produce a profitable pill, medical machine or diagnostic device drives healthcare innovation just as much as actual warfare drives military defense research. So it’s no wonder that the warlike language of persuasion is reflected in both realms.