World Science Day

According to CBS News, last Tuesday was World Science Day.  It struck me upon hearing this that not many Americans appreciate the true nature of science, its objectives and how it is supposed to work.  This is partly the fault of the media that is eager to toss out every new discovery, often with very little clarification by journalists who themselves do not understand science or have any background or interest to ask the right questions.

Science, real science, is interested in finding the truth.  To do this scientists come up with an idea of how the world works, called a hypothesis.  They then must figure out an intelligent way to collect data to confirm or reject the hypothesis – it could be right or it might be wrong.  They are never absolutely sure of the result because random events or coincidences can interfere with the interpretation of the data.  If they think it is a valid hypothesis, they publish it in a journal and invite others to critique the experimental design or to gather their own data to try to confirm or disprove it.  The strongest theories withstand many tests attempting to overturn them.  They stand as long as no one can find exceptions.

That’s how it is supposed to work.  To get to the truth, scientists must be skeptical, even about their own ideas.  It is dangerous when they fall in love with their own hypotheses.  Then they defend it instead of questioning.  They may overlook or ignore contrary data or requests for clarification.  Rather than admit they may be wrong, they resort to personal attacks.  They act not like scientists but more like a parent defending a child against bullying.

Unfortunately this happens rather often, aided by the media, where a sexy story about a new breakthrough is far more appealing than a retraction, and by the system, where institutional and governmental grants favor scientists with a track record of “wins,” data that even tenuously confirm the hypothesis, tempting researchers to manipulate results.  The dynamics of funding and publicity can have devastating consequences for science and its search for the truth.

One example of this comes from a book called The Big Fat Surprise about the history of accepted (and sometimes incorrect) guidance about the food we eat and its affect on our health.  Without getting into the subject of the book – it’s worth reading – here are a few disturbing exerpts to illustrate this wrong approach.  “This kind of [negative] reaction met all experts who criticized the prevailing view…Researchers who persisted in their challenges found themselves cut off from grants, unable to rise in their professional societies, without invitations to serve on expert panels and at a loss to find scientific journals that would publish their papers.”  (p.4)  “Experiments that had dissenting results…were not debated and discussed but dismissed or ignored altogether.” (p.44)  The author argues quite convincingly that this kind of unscientific reaction has led to unsupported public policy on nutrition.

Along the same lines, I found this citation from a 2015 bravery in science award.  “Prof Ernst continued in his work [of research into complementary and alternative medicines] despite personal attacks and attempts to undermine his research unit and end his employment.”  They don’t like what he is saying, so they try to shut him down.  This is not a path to the truth, but it’s who gets the publicity that counts.

Some ideas that are readily accepted as true today were initially resisted and some ideas that were once thought to be true were subsequently disproven (but may remain popular because people want to believe).  A good example of the first case is the theory of plate tectonics to explain earthquakes and geological formations, “when first proposed, it was ridiculed, but steadily accumulating evidence finally prompted its acceptance.”  A good example of the second is this quote from WebMD:  “Vitamin C was first touted for the common cold in the 1970s. But despite its widespread use, experts say there's very little proof that vitamin C actually has any effect on the common cold.”  Proper science continues the search and does not resist further evidence, whether positive or negative.

We can’t make valid discoveries and get nearer to the truth if opposing viewpoints are shut down or if a single study becomes the darling of the press or scientists or society.  One of the worst examples is the case, again, against vaccinations, where the researcher was so enamored with his hypothesis that he was driven to falsify data to confirm it.  Even after he was stripped of his license to practice medicine, people, induced by unqualified celebrities, still cling to this misinformation.

Understanding at least this much about science is vital to critical thinking.  In this world of social media and non-stop health news from the press, how else will we survive the onslaught of new studies, well-intentioned regulations and scary health news?

More on Those "Haters"

Several weeks ago I mentioned how everyone loves to accuse opponents of being haters.  When someone opposes something or denies “rights” they are automatically labeled.  Not only is this opposite of the spirit of the behavioral model, where we address the actions and not the person, it is also often far from accurate and certainly not constructive.

Consider how people ordinarily act toward people they hate.  Do they see the object of their hatred making mistakes and try to step in to correct those mistakes, or do they rejoice at the fact that those they hate are making mistakes and will face the consequences in the future?  The logical answer is the latter.  They want to see the people they hate fail.  

If you see a loved one smoking or abusing drugs, you try to help them quit, knowing that what they are doing now will likely catch up to them in the long run.  That opposition is not an act of hatred.  Although the constant nagging may not seem like love to the person with the problem, it’s not inspired by hate; it’s just the wrong approach.  Likewise, parents tell their children to wait until they’ve eaten their meal before having dessert because they love them and want them to stay healthy.  They deny their children the opportunity to make the mistakes and develop bad habits.  Certainly they are not cooperating with their children’s wishes, but their motive is not hateful.

This logic easily applies to family and friends, but what of strangers?  Strangely enough, some people believe that God has ordered them to take this busybody approach to the decisions of others.  Find in the Old Testament, Book of Ezekiel, for example:  “When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked, you must die,’ and you do not speak up to warn the wicked about their ways, they shall die in their sins, but I will hold you responsible for their blood.  If, however, you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, but they do not, then they shall die in their sins, but you shall save your life.”  (So, some actions of interference or denial may be cases of doing one's duty or trying to avoid future punishment rather than of hate.)

Think about the people who protest, like those outside abortion clinics or those who oppose same-sex marriage or Occupy Wall Street.  No question some of these people are filled with hate, but I would guess it is not a majority.  Most of these people think they are doing the right thing.  They take their stance based on their values or their understanding of how the world works (or should work).  They are trying to make things better and prevent other people from making mistakes that they will pay for in this life or the next.  This can hardly be considered hateful.

Before jumping to the conclusion about motives, or accepting the opinions of others about motives of an individual or a group, it’s important to think about the situation carefully.  Opposition does not usually spring from hating.

That’s why the behavioral model demands that we deal with behavior only.  Attribution of any motive is unacceptable and a waste of time.  We don’t fire an employee for a bad attitude; we fire an employee because, after numerous attempts to correct the situation, he failed to behave as required.  It makes no sense to try to attribute the failure to attitude or any other personal attribute.  The behavior is unacceptable.

Likewise, if we dismiss political or personal disagreements by assigning motives or labels, we are wasting time and have not moved forward in resolving the disagreement.  Of course, in today’s society it seems that the only resolution sought is one of bullying the opposition into submission with personal attacks and accusations – I win, you lose, problem solved!  But the real problem remains.  That’s why without the behavioral model America will continue it’s downward slide.

Refresher III

Every 6 to 9 months it is worthwhile reviewing what these short essays are about.  Just last week I heard another newscaster remark that the latest poll shows Americans' opinions lean two-to-one in the direction of the country headed in the wrong direction.  The question comes up regularly on opinion polls and the majority has been on the "wrong direction" side without exception for at least the last decade.

We get messages every day from the media and politicians. They constantly confront us with news of failures, dangers and crises:  our education system, retirement insecurity, the disappearing middle class, childhood obesity, healthcare costs, gasoline prices, food contamination, campus violence, climate change, epidemics, frivolous lawsuits, Internet scams, teens not getting enough sleep and many more.  Advertisers play on our fears and insecurities to sell us stuff we don't really need.

Our natural reaction is to look to our political leaders for help, but the dissatisfaction shown in the polls goes beyond politics or which party is in power.  What is worse, political discussion of these issues often deteriorates into name-calling and accusations.  Our natural reaction is wrong.  The solutions will not come from Washington.  The problems are ours to solve.

Most of our core problems can be traced to common behaviors of citizens, individually and as a group: what they say, what they do, decisions they make and how they react to news and advertising.

Behavior has consequences.  A good decision usually yields favorable outcomes.  Problematic behavior yields the opposite.  It's true of individuals and true of society as a whole.  Most of those issues and crises can be traced to the cumulative effects of problematic behavioral patterns in five key categories:  Economic Understanding, Discipline, Responsibility, Critical Thinking and Perspective.

To look at the many different choices and actions taken all over America every day and classify them into these few dimensions takes some skill and practice, but doing so shows definite patterns.  Americans make poor personal choices about their health and finances, encouraging others to do the same by spreading unsubstantiated fears and bad medical advice on social media.  They waste time and money and compromise their stated values by succumbing to the lure of advertisers, the hype of pop culture and the scare tactics of the media and politicians.  They seem unaware of how financial decisions and programs can be traced through society to anticipate and predict unintended consequences.  They refuse to delay gratification and look to blame others for their failings.  These small actions lead to bigger problems, both personal and societal.

By classifying behaviors into these five dimensions, it is possible to pinpoint and address core problems and to make a persuasive case that improvement in these dimensions will result in a stronger and healthier society.  Focusing only on the behavior, and requiring everyone else to do so, puts an end to the bickering, accusations, name-calling and insults that seem to dominate our communications.  It leads to a civil and specific discussion of real solutions.

Examples abound – over  460 posts in the last 4.5 years.  They appear every Monday and Friday to show clear cases where the behavioral failings lead to nearly all our societal problems.

The good news is that we shouldn’t have to wait for the next election.  That won't change a thing in terms of most of these problems.  Since the problems result from the accumulation of poor individual behaviors, the answers lie in changing those behaviors.  Real American Solutions are in our hands.

Two Cases of Hype and A Question

The news media certainly have a way with headlines that get our attention and leave us misinformed if we don’t read further.

The first case blasts the headline:  “Human DNA found in hot dogs.”  Later it explains that of the “345 hot dogs and sausages from 75 different brands sold at 10 retailers, and found human DNA in 2 percent of its hot dog samples — and two-thirds of the vegetarian samples,” ten percent of which contained meat.  One wonders why they were even testing for human DNA.  Was there a suspicion of cannibalism?  The problems with the vegetarian brands would seem to be a bigger concern, especially to vegetarians, but this is glossed over.  In reality, the DNA could be an eyelash or less, and 2% found means 98% clean; but the attention-grabbing headline is designed to lead us toward panic.  Such headlines are so common, yet the media continue the practice and are never accused of crying, “Wolf.”

The next headline, also from last week, and repeated on several morning and evening news broadcasts warned us:  “Meat Is Linked to Higher Cancer Risk.”  Everyone was getting all excited about bacon and hot dogs and red meat in general.  News came from the World Health Organization, so it must be true.  The first thing to notice is the word linked, not causes, linked.  As we all should know, correlation is not necessarily causation and much more research would be required to make such an assertion.

Although the headlines imply problems with all meat the first paragraph of the NY Times article adds considerable clarification and calm.  “An international panel of experts convened by the World Health Organization concluded Monday that eating processed meat like hot dogs, ham and bacon raises the risk of colon cancer and that consuming other red meats ‘probably’ raises the risk as well. But the increase in risk is so slight that experts said most people should not be overly worried about it.”  I added the emphasis to make the points:  not all meat as the headline implies, not all cancer, most people should not be worried about the slight increase in risk, and what does probably mean?  A little further reading turns this into a ho-hum situation rather than a crisis.  The news is no different than that released almost a year ago in another report.  (There may have been a lot of panic about it back then too, but there have been so many "crises" and "emergencies" since then, it has faded in memory.)

The best advice concerning both these warnings came from one of the network medical experts:  All things in moderation.  That sounds like perspective to me.

And now the question:  In a report on the retirement announcement of Abby Wambach, one of the greatest soccer players ever, holding the record for the most goals scored in international soccer by anyone, one teammate called her an “inspiration” and “an incredible role model to women and girls around the world.”  The question:  why just women and girls?  Can an accomplished woman in any field be a role model for everyone?  Can an accomplished man of any race or nationality also be a role model for anyone who chooses to excel?  When looking for role models, why would anyone get so hung up on physical characteristics?  This looks-like-me emphasis that narrows the field and precludes opportunities to strive and set lofty targets seems misguided and such a waste.

Chicken Protests

Sometimes passing by the television or half-listening to the radio or as a sidebar on the Internet, you catch a small part of a news story that gets you wondering.  (It happens to me often.)  This time I heard about people protesting for the better treatment of chickens so they can have a more pleasant life before they are killed and served up at fast food restaurants.  Here is one such story.

The emphasis must be on fast food industry because they have more economic clout than individuals making their choices as the grocery store.  It also gives people an opportunity to force their values on a lot of other people.  Concerning any issue at all, note how easily that a minority of fanatics can impose their will on a majority of relatively indifferent citizens.  They care; you don’t; you lose.

What struck me about the chicken story was a point of perspective.  Does anyone hearing this story, or indeed the protesters themselves sit back and think about what a luxury it is to be concerned about the living conditions of chickens?  These are not your property, chickens you rely on to provide a livelihood.  They are not pets, favorite chickens that live in the backyard and provide you with eggs.  These are stranger chickens, ones that you never interact with until they appear in the freezer section of the store or in the nugget box.

How many problems don’t we have to have to move the welfare of stranger chickens to the top of a priority list, important enough to change our buying habits or even give up our time to try to influence others to change their behavior?  We must have all the food we want, shelter from the elements, a happy and healthy family, a wide circle of friends, job security, enough money in the bank to help us over rough spots in the future and be at peace with our faith or other concept of the power of the universe.  In short, a person has to be pretty set in life to have the luxury to be able to stress about the living conditions of (stranger) chickens!  That is pretty wonderful!

Of course, even those who are so set up in their own lives might consider the living conditions of other human beings, the poor in the inner cities, the refugees overseas, and the neighbor who needs a hand or just a kind word, before chickens.  But people are free to make choices.  It is important, though, when we make those choices to appreciate what we must already have that allows us the freedom and luxury to make them.

Questioning Health News

Sometimes I wonder why I bother to watch the short health segments on the local television news.  They usually strike me as simplistic or condescending – like the one a few days ago telling me that the best way to avoid a cold this winter is frequent hand-washing, duh! Or the only sure way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more, duh²!

Every once in a while, though, they make me think, even when the topic has no bearing on my personal situation.  The other day they ran a story telling how more doctors have been recommending a combination of Vitamin B6 and an antihistamine to pregnant mothers with severe morning sickness.  (Suspicious as I am of any supplement, I had to pay attention.)  I could not find the original broadcast but this Baby Center website confirms that information:  “Vitamin B6 and doxylamine have often been used in combination to treat morning sickness. In fact, the FDA has approved this combination for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy under the brand-name Diclegis. Your practitioner may write you a prescription for it or have you take the over-the-counter combination.”

What started me thinking was a statement by one of the interviewed doctors later in the story describing how she would first recommend safer alternatives:  ginger and acupuncture.  Are these really effective treatments, and if not is a doctor behaving ethically when making such recommendations?

First things first.  The National Institute of Health (NIH) reviewed several studies to find if ginger really can relieve nausea.  They found one acceptable study on its use for morning sickness and this study did favor ginger over placebo, but they conclude that its effectiveness for nausea in general is “still a matter of debate.”  The University of Maryland Medical Center found in two small studies women taking 1g of ginger every four days “felt less nauseous and did not vomit as much as those who got placebo.”  It gives some relief but is not a cure.  UMMC adds:  “Pregnant women should ask their doctors before taking ginger and not take more than 1g per day.”

Acupuncture is another story.  NIH has reviewed many studies finding “acupuncture appears to be a reasonable option for people with chronic pain….“However, clinical practice guidelines are inconsistent in recommendations about acupuncture.”  There is no mention of it being effective or even tested for morning sickness, and even for those problems where it shows some effectiveness many researcher saw “no difference between the effects of actual and simulated acupuncture.” 

Of the two, ginger may work, but there is no evidence that acupuncture is effective.  The question follows about the ethics of recommending a treatment with no track record.  This becomes tricky when you consider the placebo effect, which involves administering a pill or shot with no medicinal value or applying a treatment or test with no direct effect, that relies on the patient’s belief system to promote healing.  As this Forbes article explains, doctors do not agree among themselves what course is proper and where to draw the line that may violate either ethical standards or trust in the doctor-patient relationship.  One point to consider, of course, is the cost of a placebo prescription.  Ginger is fairly inexpensive but Harvard Health reports:  “Acupuncture treatments range from $65 to $125 per session. Private insurers usually don’t pay for it, nor do Medicare or Medicaid.”

Critical thinking drives us to ask these kinds of questions of seemingly innocent statements on the news.  Perhaps if enough people begin asking, it will force journalists to be less passive and dig a little bit deeper before passing along all their tidbits and leaving it up to the viewers to sort out fact from fiction from misinformation.  Shouldn’t they consider it to be their job?