Yucky-Poo!

Almost exactly two years ago in an entry called “Is It Real Science?” I used a couple of current news articles to show the difference between real science and the kind of celebrity endorsement tactics used to promote questionable health claims.  One of them presented their findings along with specific information about how a particular experiment was set up and conducted.  The other talked only about how the practice of placentophagy had been endorsed by famous people with no scientific or medical credentials.

That was that; until very recently when I heard the cry of “yucky-poo” coming from the direction of our computer.  Placentophagy is the practice of new mothers taking the placenta (afterbirth) out of the hospital to eat at home.  (The phagy ending comes into English from the Greek phage meaning one who eats.)  The latest research confirms what we suspected all along.

The article from Fox News that prompted the outburst, tells us that there is no science supporting the practice.  “Researchers at Northwestern University found that the common practice of eating the placenta after childbirth does not have health benefits— and may have unknown risks.”  Cautions include that “storage and preparation are not regulated, and dosage is inconsistent,” and we don’t yet even know what is in it.

That is not enough to stop new, possibly nursing mothers who are usually very careful about what they put into their bodies, but who put more faith in pop culture than in science or their own doctors.  We are told “the practice has increased in popularity, with celebrities such as Kourtney Kardashian talking about the benefits.”

To follow such advice is not only extremely poor critical thinking but also irresponsible behavior as the mother of a newborn.  Of course regular readers already have known that for a couple of years.

Science Education

I see so many cases of scientific misinformation and errors on TV, in the press and in advertising that I think it would be a good idea for someone or some organization (perhaps a university or  Consumer Protection Agency) to provide high school science teachers with a set of weekly topics.  The thrust would be how to protect yourself against fraud and misinformation – how people will try to use your lack of understanding of science to mislead, trick and cheat you.  If you don't understand science, no one will help you.

Here is a shocking example from a newspaper report from earlier this year (May 7, 2013) showing how sloppy journalists can be about science.  Dateline Cape Canaveral, “Two robotic U.S. rovers are back in business on Mars after a month long solar blackout that blocked communications with engineers back on Earth [due to] a solar conjunction [when the] sun in early April moved into an orbit directly between Earth and Mars, interfering with communications between the planets."  [Emphasis added].  Really?  The sun moved into an orbit between the planets?  Didn’t the columnist or his editor know better?  This is scary - reporting based on 15th Century science.  With this in mind, how much other, more damaging, bad information is passed along through the sloppiness or ignorance of the press? 

Many subjects, some covered in these posts over the past two years, would be helpful to young adults to keep them from wasting their time and money or becoming unnecessarily panicked.  Suggested topics include:  the placebo effect, pros and cons of dietary supplements, what to look for in properly designed experiments or tests for effectiveness, genetic engineering of food, the pros and cons of organic farming, a brief history of diet scams, the truth about vaccines and autism, fluoride in drinking water, understanding irradiated food, and common scientific myths.  Without an understanding of these subjects along with training in critical thinking as part of a science education, future generations will be vulnerable to deceptive advertising and the pleas from advocates for every crackpot idea that comes along.

What will happen when they step into high school chemistry class and find out that everything in the universe is made of chemicals and that "chemical" is not a bad word, nor is it the opposite of natural or organic – ideas that seem contrary to what they've encountered from family and the media?  It has almost come to the point where science is being replaced by religion in the public mind, not a standard religion, but a new quasi-religion where the truth is based more on what you believe or believe in than what can be scientifically tested.  Unless this behavior changes Americans will continue to waste money and energy supporting products and services backed only by scientific-sounding arguments and celebrity endorsements.  Let's change it early, before another generation is taken in.

Is It Real Science?

Consider these two articles.  The first from USA Today explains the new practice of placentophagy.  New mothers are opting to bring their placenta home from the hospital to ingest as a means of recovering from childbirth.  The second is from Johns Hopkins asking if it is safe to take beta-carotene supplements while receiving radiation treatments for prostate cancer.  On the surface the two seem unrelated, but as a contrast between real science and something else they are very informative.

To explain placentophagy, the first article uses word like “some believe it can help mothers recover from childbirth by improving mood, leveling hormones, increasing iron levels and boosting milk supply” [emphasis added].  “One process now taught nationally was developed in 2005, based on traditional Chinese medicine, said Jodi Selander, founder of Placenta Benefits LTD in Nevada.”  The reference to traditional Chinese medicine ensures automatic credibility with the science-challenged audience.  The quote comes not from an impartial source, but from someone in the business.  Finally comes the celebrity endorsement:  “Kim Kardashian recently announced she is interested in the practice, if it can maintain her youthful looks.”

See how different the second article is.  After providing the reference to the full study in a scientific journal, it goes on to explain the sample size (383 men) and the experimental method:  “The men were randomly assigned to take either beta-carotene (50 mg) or placebo every other day. At a median follow-up of 10.5 years, the researchers found no significant differences between groups in terms of prostate cancer spread to the bones or mortality.”  The summary statement explains the limitations of the findings:  “they apply to a 50-mg dose of beta-carotene taken on alternate days. The safety of larger doses or more frequent use was not examined.”

I think comparing these two stories makes it easy to see the difference between real science and promotion-by-endorsement that is so widespread in the media.  The second is clearly good science, reliable advice to follow.  The experimental conditions have been specified and the findings limited to those conditions.  It is from a known, impartial source with reference to the original study.  The first is a lot easier, though.  You don’t have to worry about any studies or sample sizes, just take the word of Kim Kardasian or the founder of a company who benefits from your decision to spend time and money on what appears to be a fad, another magical cure.  It probably won’t hurt you, but there is no evidence that it will help you either.

Taking action on weak, incomplete or non-existent evidence or unsupported endorsements, whether from friends, family or celebrities, is a potentially dangerous habit.  It wastes money on a host of non-value-added products and services, none of which have good science behind them, and therefore, are likely to be of little value and may easily turn out to be harmful.  A little critical thinking is all it takes.  So how do all these other folks stay in business?