Fabula

Duke Medical Center

Cardiac Research and Clinical Studies

Description

Dr. Gwendolyn Chen serves as Chief Cardiologist at Duke Medical Center. Staff there ran a double-blind study on remote intercessory prayer for CCU heart patients, which reported an 11% drop in cardiac events for the prayed-for group. Toby and Hoebuck cite the center's non-sectarian status to pitch NIH funding, positioning it as a credible research source amid White House vote bargaining.

Event Involvements

Events with structured involvement data

2 events
S4E12 · Guns Not Butter
Prayer for a Vote — Hoebuck's Price

Duke Medical Center is the institutional home of Dr. Chen and the source of the double‑blind study. Its non‑sectarian standing is cited to deflect accusations of religious bias and to lend scientific credibility to the prayer study.

Active Representation

Through Dr. Gwendolyn Chen, a named clinician speaking to the White House staff.

Power Dynamics

Duke's reputation confers credibility in the exchange, allowing a senator to leverage its research for political ends.

Institutional Impact

Duke's involvement shows how prestigious institutions can be politicized when their research is used to justify appropriations or policy decisions.

Internal Dynamics

Not explicit; potential internal pressure to protect reputation if the study becomes politically charged.

Organizational Goals
Support and expand legitimate clinical research Maintain non‑sectarian scientific credibility
Influence Mechanisms
Reputation and academic standing Production of data and peer‑reviewable study results
S4E12 · Guns Not Butter
Counting Votes, Buying Prayers

Duke Medical Center is the scientific provenance of Dr. Chen's double-blind study; its non-sectarian status is invoked to legitimize the research as credible and nonreligious, providing cover for a politically palatable funding request.

Active Representation

Through Dr. Gwendolyn Chen, its chief cardiologist, who presents study results to White House staff.

Power Dynamics

Acts as an authoritative knowledge source that can be leveraged politically, yet dependent on federal funding decisions to scale research.

Institutional Impact

The center's involvement tests the boundary between science and politics; funding it could conflate institutional research credibility with partisan bargaining.

Internal Dynamics

Implicit tension between scientific rigor and how research can be interpreted or used for political ends.

Organizational Goals
See promising research replicated with sufficient funding Maintain nonsectarian scientific credibility in politically sensitive work
Influence Mechanisms
Scientific data and institutional reputation Expert testimony via a senior researcher