# Identification of Distinct Research Gaps that Complement Previous Critiques of Militaristic Language in Relation to Cancer and Other Non-Military Topics

## TL;DR

The paper highlights two overlooked research areas in discussions about using war-like language for cancer, urging more inclusive and ethical communication.

## Contribution

The paper identifies two unaddressed research gaps: perspectives of wartime-experienced individuals and the role of dual-use technologies in cancer discourse.

## Key findings

- Militaristic language in cancer discourse may be influenced by dual-use technologies with military origins.
- Research lacks input from individuals with firsthand wartime experience on perceptions of militaristic language.
- Using war metaphors for cancer may skew public understanding and ethical considerations.

## Abstract

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.

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.