He's a scientist. You're a scientist. Googling quickly comes up with various things (mostly propylene glycol) that can cause allergies to ecigs, but also a good deal of scepticism from users and others that it's really possible to be allergic to second hand vapour, and in five minutes I didn't come across anyone who had an inkling that it's possible to be allergic to second hand vapour when the vaping isn't even happening in the presence of the person with the allergy. This is likely to be a hard thing to convince him is physical, and if he goes along with it out of politeness but being internally convinced it's histrionics, that's also bad for you in the long term. Can you come up with an experimental design sufficiently robust to convince both you and him that the effect is not psychological, _without_ doing you more harm than it's sensible for you to risk, given the possibly available benefit that comes from him being convinced you were right? For example, would it work if you ask him to refrain for [some length of time enough to allow you to recover], and then use a random number generator to pick one occasion to vape in his office over the next [time period] and see if the effect is repeatable? Or is that still too harmful to be practical, or can you smell the stuff and so is it not possible for you to be blinded to whether he's used it or not? Obviously it's not easy to blind *him*.
I surmise that it might matter because at stake is not only Alex's present health, but also, various subtle aspects of their prospects for future employment and other career-related stuff that can be affected by exactly how he thinks of them. Of course, some people would be a lot touchier about this than others - but Alex was concerned about how to make the request, which might be a sign that at least he's not so easy-going that any way of making it will do fine.
It's also delicate because - if this office is where I assume it is - he's not allowed to use an e-cig in his office anyway. You didn't mention that, Alex, but I assume you knew it? [ETA I didn't, when I typed the earlier comment.] So asking him not to vape in his office before meetings involves sharing an assumption that he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing anyway... which should make it easier to get him to stop, but not necessarily easy to get him to stop without putting his back up!
Not being allowed to smoke ecigs (ugh i hate the word vape) in workplaces, libraries, trains seems to be standard these days? I mean, geneva has just caught on, but geneva is slow on the uptake in many respects. They've been verboten in uni buildings at USyd for *years*. Also, notably, they are banned on planes.
Prof X is doin' a wrong thing even if he's not doing it when kabarett is around!
But it may be easier to ask him to schedule these meetings in a different room rather than stop smoking in his office.
Aaaand there is peer-reviewed work on secondhand e-cigarette exposure, vis, nicotine contamination is a thing, although that study found no 'combustion products' picked up secondhand.
A quick google says they're also *banned* by the FDA in the states, concerns about the unregulated ingredients, and several early studies in damage to the smoker themselves. I think Professor X might be pissed, yes, but anyone accusing kaberett of being unscientific or expecting her to do her *own* experimental research on it, when there's peer reviewed work out there and the FDA think they're dangerous is a person of dubious reliability.
Sorry, insufficient clarity: i could see you were advising on heading off a potential risk, but i rather think that *if* it transpires that any scientists would only respect Alex's lungs if Alex conducted an ad-hoc one-person experiment using their own body - given there is sufficent peer-reviewed material easily available to suggest that Alex's problem is *plausible* if not yet conclusively documented - then said scientists would be dicks, and their opinion of dubious reliability.
I mean, it might happen. But it would not be scientifically valid, or indicative of reasonable critical thinking on the part of said scientists.
I absolutely take the point about N=1 etc. - my work does not involve experiments! - but the issue I was trying to address isn't about whether this person respects Alex's lungs, so much as about whether he respects their brain. The harsh truth is that it doesn't matter very much whether you, or I, or Alex, think that Alex's group leader is a dick or his opinion of dubious reliability. His opinion of Alex still matters, assuming he retains some useful degree of respect from his peers. If, on being asked informally whether he'd recommend Alex for position X, he gives a less-than-glowing answer, they don't get the job. (Or, more insidiously, the co-authorship, the refereeing gig, the seminar invitation, the... all the stuff that is awarded on the basis of X's opinion of Y, and leads to success.)
And even if the answer to "can you design an experiment which [will convincingly rule out a possibility someone has in mind]" is No, e.g. because the largest N we have available is 1 and you can't do stats on that, it may *still* be worth thinking about, because Alex may wish to get points for an honest attempt to look at the issue that may be in someone's mind face on. E.g. just saying "I think it's an allergy. I can't prove that it's not partly psychological, e.g. exacerbated by the natural anxiety I feel given that my lungs are so troublesome. Regardless, the effect is real and I'd appreciate it if you acted on the assumption that it's entirely physical" would get a much better reaction from some people than the bare assertion that it's physical and no engagement with any other possibility.
Looks like, right now, they're just in the middle of trying to decide what to do with them domestically. The most recent article I could find about it is here, which is saying that everything is still up in the air.
Comment editing switches off after a comment is replied to. I was around for the great debate on LJ about whether comment editing was the best thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since the arson at the library of Alexandria. Locking after reply was the general compromise.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 02:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 04:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 06:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 07:45 pm (UTC)It's also delicate because - if this office is where I assume it is - he's not allowed to use an e-cig in his office anyway. You didn't mention that, Alex, but I assume you knew it? [ETA I didn't, when I typed the earlier comment.] So asking him not to vape in his office before meetings involves sharing an assumption that he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing anyway... which should make it easier to get him to stop, but not necessarily easy to get him to stop without putting his back up!
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 07:59 pm (UTC)Prof X is doin' a wrong thing even if he's not doing it when kabarett is around!
But it may be easier to ask him to schedule these meetings in a different room rather than stop smoking in his office.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 08:09 pm (UTC)A quick google says they're also *banned* by the FDA in the states, concerns about the unregulated ingredients, and several early studies in damage to the smoker themselves. I think Professor X might be pissed, yes, but anyone accusing kaberett of being unscientific or expecting her to do her *own* experimental research on it, when there's peer reviewed work out there and the FDA think they're dangerous is a person of dubious reliability.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 08:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 08:49 pm (UTC)I mean, it might happen. But it would not be scientifically valid, or indicative of reasonable critical thinking on the part of said scientists.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 09:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 09:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 08:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 08:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 08:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 10:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 08:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 10:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-08 10:13 pm (UTC)Yep I saw, apology post downthread. Alex doesn't have comment editing enabled or I'd do that!
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-09 03:21 am (UTC)