Letter: Stress and the limits of understanding
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Paul Fox (Letters, 4 February) suggests that semantics are unimportant in understanding whatever it is we mean by the word 'stress'. We disagree. Researchers and practitioners do not have a shared definition of 'stress'; they use it to refer to quite different phenomena, have few, if any, sound theories to account for its supposed general effects, and perhaps most importantly, appear to have ignored the scientific and practical implications of these problems.
One consequence of this lack of semantic clarity is that 'stress' has become a term which refers to anything bad that happens to us, and anything bad we feel. While, of course, illness should be prevented and the sick and distressed treated, the simple-minded invocation of the notion of 'stress' does not help us to achieve this.
It is true that there is a steadily growing mountain of scientific papers which examine associations between 'stress' and illness. What is less often publicly acknowledged is that much of this evidence is patchy, inconsistent, and inconclusive. However, we do not need conclusive scientific
evidence in order to agree with Tom Mellish (Letters, 5 February) that employers have both a legal and a moral responsibility to
protect their staff from danger-
ous and demanding working
conditions.
Yours faithfully,
ROB BRINER
Department of Occupational
Psychology
Birkbeck College
University of London
SHIRLEY REYNOLDS
Medical Research Council
Social and Applied
Psychology Unit
University of Sheffield
4 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
0Comments