Comment

Comment

the product. The law explicitly does not alter the tobacco the low-tar debacle might have been avoided, Marlboro
companies’ liability in court.
might today be a very different product, and many lives
Also, the Bill permits the entry of new products that
might reduce disease caused by tobacco, but prohibits might have been saved.
explicit or implicit health claims in which the manufacturer
has not first shown that the product as actually used Matthew L Myers
will substantially reduce the risk of disease to individual
consumers and benefit the population as a whole, taking Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Washington, DC 20005, USA
into account the product’s effect on tobacco initiation,
quitting, and relapse, and requires post marketing surveil- [email protected]
lance of actual usage. The legislation prohibits the terms
“light”, “mild”, or “low”, and improves the health warnings I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
on tobacco products and their advertisements.
1 WHO. Regulation urgently needed to control growing list of deadly tobacco
There are a few individuals who oppose this approach, products. May 30, 2006: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/
largely because Philip Morris also supports the bill, and releases/2006/pr28/en/index.html (accessed June 16, 2006).
because the bill would not permit the FDA to ban all
cigarettes without Congressional action. 2 Glantz SA, Slade J, Bero LA, et al. The cigarette papers. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1996.
If a proposal meets standards previously set by the
public-health community—and this bill does—Philip 3 US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of
Morris’ support is not a reason to oppose it. If Philip Health, National Cancer Institute. Risks associated with smoking cigarettes
Morris’ support dictated the public-health position, the with low machine-measured yields of tar and nicotine.
company would gain control over our agenda. Philip Smoking Tobacco Control Mono October, 2001: http://cancercontrol.cancer.
Morris supports the FCTC; yet no one has suggested gov/tcrb/monographs/13/index.html (accessed June 16, 2006).
the public-health community oppose this hard-fought
treaty. The pending bill is stronger than bills the entire 4 Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., CN 00-L-112, Circuit Court of Madison County,
public-health community has supported in the past; that Illinois, March 21, 2003.
is why all of the other US tobacco companies vigorously
oppose it. 5 Food and Drug Administration. Regulations restricting the sale and
distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to protect children and
The FCTC provides public-health authorities with adolescents: final rule. Federal Register, 21 CFR p. 44396. Washington DC,
an opportunity to regulate tobacco products in a way US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
never before done. This is a time for serious debate and Administration, Aug 28, 1996.
thoughtful discussion, and the principles set out in the
proposed FDA legislation provide a sound basis to focus 6 Expert report of Anthony Biglan, PhD. The marketing of cigarettes to
that discussion. Had this bill been the law 30 years ago, young people? United States Department of Justice, United States v. Philip
Morris, Inc, et al, CA 99-2496. Unites States District Court for the District of
Columbia, November 12, 2001 “Preventing tobacco use among young
people: a report of the Surgeon General”, US Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (1994).

7 Hoffmann D, Hoffmann I, El-Bayoumy K. The less harmful cigarette: a
controversial issue. A tribute to Ernst L Wynder. Chem Res Toxicol 2001;
14: 767–90.

8 Hoffmann D, Hoffmann I. The changing cigarette, 1950–1995.
J Toxicol Environ Health 1997; 50: 307–64.

9 O’Connor RJ, Cummings KM, Giovino GA, McNeill A, Kozlowski LT. How
did UK cigarette makers get their brands to 10 mg ‘tar’ or less? BMJ 2006;
332: 302.

10 S.2461 and H.R. 4433 Family smoking prevention and tobacco control
act (May 20, 2004); later included in H.R. 4520 (American Jobs Creation
Act of 2004): H.R. 1376 and S.666 when re-introduced on March 17,
2005.

11 Siegel M, Blum A. FDA regulation of tobacco: reprieve for the Marlboro
man? Lancet 2006; 368: 266–68.

12 Chapter IX Tobacco Products, Section 904, 906(d), 907, 911 and 112 of
H.R. 1376 and S.666. Family smoking prevention and tobacco control act
(March 17, 2005).

Knowing me, knowing ewe

See Comment page 272 For the ultimate test of immunity to anthro- This weakness for imputing human feelings, values,
pomorphism, go to South Georgia and spend an hour and intentions to other living things and even to
in a breeding colony of 20 000 chinstrap penguins. machines is universal and, by and large, harmless. Even
I failed the test, succumbing within 10 min to the alien life is usually a reflection of ourselves. When the
conviction that only small human beings in costume cosmologist Fred Hoyle turned his hand to science fiction,1
could display such varieties of cunning, malice, he broke the mould by imagining a life form embodied
affection, contentment, curiosity, and bad temper, in in the molecular organisation of a cloud of gas. But
addition to waddling in a clear parody of our human more typical of fictional aliens are the many beings from
gait. other worlds who populate the universe of Star Trek. Our

270 www.thelancet.com Vol 368 July 22, 2006

Comment

physical dissimilarities to the Kaelonians, the Kanarians, Try playing the role of a courting male snake, say Rivas and
the Kelvans, the Kerelians, and the Klingons are mostly no Burghardt, and you soon appreciate why mobility, small
more than skin deep. size, and a good chemosensory system are more likely
than mere bulk to win a fair reptile.
Science, as opposed to science fiction, has long struggled
against the distorting prism of anthropomorphism, Some of the most bullish, to coin a phrase, attempts
which hampers our understanding of non-human crea- to defy the accusation of anthropomorphism have come
tures. Pragmatically speaking, of course, a dash of this from psychologist Sam Gosling.5 He and his associates
outlook might help put the brake on scientists whose have done a series of experiments, usually with dogs, to
zeal for understanding is in danger of blinding them define and measure animal personality. They claim that
to the welfare of the animals on which they work. If such assessments are objective, reproducible, and not
giving names to laboratory rats and rabbits sensitises solely a productof anthropomorphic projection. Moreover,
researchers to their possible distress, so much the better. they suggest that research on non-human animals is
But anthropomorphism harbours countless pitfalls well suited to answering long-standing questions about
for the unwary: pandering to the imaginary needs of human social psychology; the effects, for example, of early
animals is merely foolish, neglecting their real ones can environment on personality development.
be cruel. The apparent smile of a dolphin or a chimpanzee
signals distress or fear, not pleasure. Although our love A more recent entrant to the study of anthro-
of companion animals has given many of them a life pomorphism is robotics. Engineers have begun to take
more pampered than that of the average human being, note of the extent to which our feelings about robots,
breeding for desired characteristics, such as a childlike and our trust in them, are influenced by their appearance
appearance, has brought some breeds to a state of near and behaviour. One American group has reported studies6
universal abnormality. in which individuals interacting with robots had a clear
preference for those that, like a butler, say, as opposed
Justified disdain for most anthropomorphism is not, to a handyperson, not only behaved the part, but also
however, the same as wholesale dismissal of attempts to looked it. Another and more chilling finding was that
characterise animals’ states of mind. On philosophical and robots showing a demeanour to match the seriousness of
practical grounds there is a limited case to be made for the task in hand could count on greater compliance when
the defence. Even Darwin, hardly a sentimentalist about requesting their human associates to do something.
nature, concluded that “the lower animals, like man,
manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness and misery”.2
Jane Goodall3 is quite comfortable about using the lexicon
of human terminology about primates, stating: “Although
it is difficult to quantify emotions those who have worked
closely with chimpanzees agree that they feel and express
emotions such as sadness and happiness, fear and
despair—and they know mental as well as physical pain.”

Some researchers invoke what they call critical rather
than classic anthropomorphism. The aim of the critical
approach is to see animal behaviours and relationships
from the viewpoint of the animals themselves, with
scientists putting themselves, as it were, in the animals’
shoes. Rivas and Burghardt4 used this approach to try to
explain size differences between male and female snakes.
In many species, competition for females favours the
emergence of larger males. So why not in snakes as well?
Because the hurdles to successful breeding that snakes
have to overcome are mostly to do with locating potential
mates, and getting to them without being eaten en route.

www.thelancet.com Vol 368 July 22, 2006 271

Comment

We may sneer at anthropomorphism. Astute robots, 1 Hoyle F. The black cloud. London: Penguin, 1957.
however, might even now be contemplating how an
understanding of it can be made to work for them. 2 Darwin C. The descent of man. London: John Murray, 1871.

Geoff Watts 3 Goodall J. In the shadow of man. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000.

London NW3 1LS, UK 4 Rivas JA, Burghardt GM. Understanding sexual size dimorphism in snakes:
geoff@scileg.freeserve.co.uk wearing the snake’s shoes. Animal Behav 2001; 62: F1–6.

I declare that I have no conflict of interest. 5 Gosling SD. From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from
animal research? Psychol Bull 2001; 127: 45–86.
Revenge of the hymenoptera
6 Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A. Matching robot appearance and behavior to
tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Proceedings 12th IEEE
International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication,
2003. http://anthropomorphism.org/pdf/old/PearlRoMan.pdf (accessed July
13, 2006).

See Comment page 270 So, robots might be using an understanding of anthro- as tomatoes and strawberries have meant that millions of
pomorphism to get their way with human beings,1 them have been imported to the UK for use in commercial
but it is not only robots that are rebelling against their glasshouses, where it seems they have been turning
consigned function at our expense. A large rise in the UK against their human co-workers, who, having to work in
in hospital admissions because of stings from hornets, close proximity to the bees’ nests, are at high risk of being
bees, or wasps could herald a rebellion among the stung.
hymenoptera.
But it is not only bees that are part of this rebellion; we
In 2000–04, the numbers of patients admitted to in the UK are also under attack from an invasive species of
hospital for medical care because of stings averaged 425.2 wasp from continental Europe.4 Numbers of Dolichovespula
But the numbers for 2004–05 were 843. Furthermore, in media have risen exponentially in recent years in the UK.
2004–05, eight people died from such stings, compared Their tendency to build their small nests at eye level means
with an average of two people a year for the previous 4 that if anyone unsuspectingly gets close to a nest, they
years.2 could be in for a nasty surprise from the army of wasps
who patrol the surface of the nest, flying into the face of
What could be behind this rise in stings? Our passion anyone who comes too near.
for year-round fruit of all varieties3 could be partly to
blame. Bumblebees’ skills in pollination of plants such With hymenoptera’s natural resources in decline towards
the end of the summer, it is not only the gardener who
should fear being stung. When food is scarce, wasps and
bees will not hesitate to steal yours. So make sure to look
closely before taking a bite into that picnic sandwich.

We do not have the rights to Rosie Taylor
reproduce this image on the
The Lancet, London NW1 7BY, UK
web.
1 Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A. Matching robot appearance and behavior to
Science Photo Library tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Proceedings 12th IEEE
International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication,
2003. http://anthropomorphism.org/pdf/old/PearlRoMan.pdf (accessed
July 17, 2006).

2 Hansard. The UK parliament House of Commons Hansard written answers.
July 13, 2006: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/
cmhansrd/cm060713/text/60713w1635.htm#06071418000090, ICD-10
cause code X23 (accessed July 18, 2006).

3 Popple S, UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Needs and
expectations from horticulture research: a UK perspective. World
Conference on Horticultural Research, June 17–20 , 1998. Acta Hortic 1999;
495: 491–94.

4 BBC news. Life-threatening wasp stings boom. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/
hi/health/5181266.stm (accessed July 18, 2006).

272 www.thelancet.com Vol 368 July 22, 2006