BSCiTS are off

We all love the idea of biscuits but, much like BSCiTS, the reality is not plain sailing. The cost of a biscuit has risen over the last decade in both financial and health terms. BSCiTS too came burdened by both considerations as well.

For a start BSCiTS was vague (at best) in its proposal for funding: “The precise study design, methods and sample size will depend on the total amount of donations received.”

And, on the topic of funding, Siegel was seeking an incredible amount: “Our total fundraising goal ($4.5 million) is based on the minimum amount of funds necessary ” Yes, he was hunting for at least £2,800,000 through crowd funding.

Now clearly, based on his list of qualifications and previous contributions to the on-going vaping debate, Siegel is not a stupid man – but it takes some level of naivety to propose “the research team reserves the right to alter the scope of the proposed research project to keep it in line with the funds raised. This may entail reducing the time frame or sample size of the study. Alternatively, the researchers may choose to conduct a survey-based study instead of a behaviora (sic)l study if the funds received are not sufficient.”

Having ruled out tobacco and tobacco-controlled electronic cigarette involvement in fund-raising he was expecting the vaping community to fully fund an incoherent study that would cost more than the collected money spent on every other piece of research carried out to date. Unsurprisingly, the BSCiTS team was bombarded with questions searching for clarification and assurances.

Everyone who is a seasoned user of social media appreciates that there are those who will always fail to grasp the point, some who wilfully ignore fact and then those who troll for their own internal reasons. Children are taught in school that the best response is to ignore online comments you find objectionable.

What we witnessed with the recent case of Professor John Ashton is that academics have the potential to be removed from real life, having an inability to deal with people they’d otherwise not come into contact with despite making decisions that effect their lives.

The lack of funding forthcoming is the most probable reason for the team calling it a day but where Siegel has let himself down in the eyes of many is that he made vapers on social media the #1 issue causing them to pull the plug.

Along with blaming vapers, Siegel also suggested that people were only willing to donate if they could dictate the methodology and, thereby, the outcomes. Indeed, he went so far as to say that vapers are being “hypocritical given the e-cigarette community’s rejection of biased research studies produced by tobacco companies and public health professionals alike.”

It is a shame that he is unable to grasp what the key issues are here – issues neatly summed up by Julie Woessner, President of the highly active American vaping consumer group CASAA:

Has Siegel taken the points on board? Unfortunately not; on Thursday he continued to whinge on his blog about the “venom” and “battering” he has received:

Albeit a bit-player to date (compared to the far more self-directed and cost-effective Doctor Farsalinos), Siegel’s contributions have been welcome. Ideally he will be able to see his way past his Facebook growing pains – as someone who has attended faculty meetings in the past he ought to have the tools to deal with attacks on his ideas. It would be nice to see a small group of vocal vapers realise that alienating a supporter is hardly in our collective interests either.

Now let’s all have a nice cup of tea and a Hobnob.