Militaristic language is pervasive in cancer discourse across media, fundraising, politics, healthcare, and science, despite longstanding critiques from both civilian and military perspectives. Critics argue that framing cancer as a war or battle can lead to feelings of shame and inadequacy, particularly for those with metastatic cancer. This language often diverts focus from prevention and early detection strategies, complicating public perception and understanding of cancer. Two distinct research gaps related to the use of militaristic language in cancer discourse remain unaddressed: the role of dual-use technologies and the perspectives of individuals with wartime experience. Dual-use technologies, initially developed for military applications, have significantly advanced cancer diagnosis and treatment. Yet, their historical and ethical implications are largely absent from public discourse and scientific literature. Awareness of the complex role that dual-use technologies play in cancer diagnostics and treatment, as well as in other societal areas, could influence the prevalence of militaristic language used to describe challenges like cancer, drugs, poverty, and other civil issues. Secondly, studies have not examined opinions on the use of militaristic language among individuals with firsthand wartime experience, - such as civilian victims, military personnel, veterans, pacifists, and aid workers - compared to those without such experience. Both of these omissions may skew findings and overlook diverse perceptions. Addressing these research gaps could foster a more respectful public cancer discourse that takes into account the experiences of affected individuals. This commentary expands on existing critiques, urging professionals to adopt nuanced and inclusive language for cancer and other peaceful topics. Militaristic language is outdated, ethically questionable, and should not be used in science, healthcare, politics, fundraising, or other public contexts.
Keywords: cancer; communication; due-use technology; ethics; global inequality; media; mental health; public discourse; terminology; war.
Plain language summary
Cancer is a major global health issue, causing illness and death worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Interestingly, in peaceful regions, people often use warlike language and metaphors when discussing cancer, whether in fundraising efforts, political debates, scientific research, media stories, or other contexts. However, in regions affected by war and conflict, healthcare systems face significant challenges, exacerbating the difficulty of managing cancer effectively. Most scientific studies on this war-themed language in cancer contexts originate from wealthier, peaceful regions. Unlike cancer, diseases like mental illnesses, considered “low-prestige,” are seldom described using war language. This difference highlights how societal values influence the way we talk about, perceive, fund, and prioritize treatment for various illnesses. This paper identifies two major blind spots in the research on war-like language and cancer: first, the lack of input from people who have lived through war, such as civilian victims, war refugees, military personnel including veterans, aid workers, and others; second, the oversight of how dual-use technologies—originally developed for military purposes—play a crucial yet complex role in cancer care. Understanding these technologies might change how we use war language not just for cancer, but for other issues in civilian life too. Using militaristic language to talk about cancer is not only outdated but also raises ethical concerns. It’s time to rethink our words and avoid military language and rhetoric in science, healthcare, politics, fundraising, and other public contexts.
Keywords：militaristic language; cancer; research gaps
军事语言在媒体、筹款活动、政治、医疗保健和科学领域关于癌症的讨论中普遍存在，尽管长期以来从市民和军事视角都提出了批评。批评者认为，将癌症比作战争或战斗可能会导致转移性癌症患者感到羞耻和无力感。这种语言通常会分散人们对预防和早期检测策略的关注，从而影响公众对癌症的认识和理解。在关于使用军事语言的癌症讨论中仍然存在两个未被解决的研究缺口：双用途技术的作用以及具有战争经历的人士的观点。双用途技术最初为军事应用开发，显著提升了癌症诊断和治疗的能力。然而，它们的历史和伦理意义却很少出现在公共讨论和科学文献中。了解这些双用途技术在癌症诊断和治疗中的复杂作用，以及其他社会领域的情况，可能会改变人们描述像癌症、药物滥用、贫困和其他非战争问题时使用军事语言的频率。其次，目前还没有研究考察过具有直接战场经验的人士（如平民受害者、现役军人、退伍军人、和平主义者、援助工作者等）与没有这些经历的人士对使用军事语言的态度差异。这两方面的缺失可能会使研究结果产生偏差，并忽视了不同视角的存在。解决这两个研究缺口可以促进更加尊重公众的癌症讨论，充分考虑受影响个体的经历。本文扩展了现有批评意见，敦促专业人士采用细致和包容的语言来描述癌症及其他和平议题。军事语言已经过时、伦理上值得怀疑，在科学、医疗保健、政治、筹款和其他公共领域中不应继续使用。
关键词： 癌症；沟通；双用途技术；伦理；全球不平等；媒体；心理健康；公众讨论；术语；战争
简易摘要
癌症是全球健康的重大问题，在世界各地，特别是在低收入和中等收入国家，造成了疾病和死亡。有趣的是，在和平地区的人们在讨论癌症时经常会使用战争般的语言和比喻，无论是为了筹款、政治辩论、科学研究、媒体报道还是其他语境。然而，在受战争和冲突影响的地区，医疗保健系统面临巨大挑战，使有效管理癌症变得更加困难。大多数关于此类战争主题语言的研究主要来自较富裕和平稳的区域。与癌症不同的是，被视为“低地位”的疾病如精神疾病，很少用战争语言来描述。这种差异突显了社会价值观如何影响我们讨论、看待、资助和优先治疗各种疾病的途径。本文指出了研究中有关战争类语言和癌症存在的两个主要盲点：首先，缺乏来自经历过战争的人士的意见，例如平民受害者、战区难民、现役军人包括退伍军人、援助工作者等；其次，忽视了双用途技术——最初为军事目的开发的——在癌症护理中的重要但复杂的作用。理解这些技术可能会改变我们不仅对癌症而且对民生活动中其他问题使用战争语言的方式。使用军事语言来谈论癌症不仅是过时的做法，还会引发伦理问题。是时候重新思考我们的言辞，并避免在科学、医疗保健、政治、筹款和其他公共领域中使用军事语言和修辞。
