Science, but not as we know it
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 In the latest of his Reflections on a Free Society, published today on The Free Society website, Simon Hills (associate editor of The Times Magazine) declares: "you’ve as much chance of finding a scientist like Michael Faraday as stumbling across Kristin Scott Thomas in a bingo hall."
He continues:
Today’s scientists come to our attention not by standing in a box of lightning in dramatic public lectures, but by grabbing ever more extravagant headlines, telling us that our little sojourn on planet Earth is about to come to an end. Given melting ice caps, a population explosion, AIDS, additives in food, it’s unlikely we have long for this world. Science is only science if it’s telling us we’re going to die, or at very best become very, very ill.
We are bombarded with reports telling us that grapefruit increases breast cancer risk (and how the hell did scientists track down all these grapefruit-eaters to come up with this little nugget?), Teflon can increase the risk of allergies and colds can kill off our memories.
Real science, from the likes of Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Fleming that has given us modern medicine, freedom to travel the world, central heating and pain relief at the dentist’s has been replaced by touchy-feely studies that chime with the nanny state, with finger-wagging warnings about dangerous pursuits such as watching television and eating chips.
Reader Comments (8)
Simon Hills' writes an excellent piece. How the "scientists" no doubt found a correlation between grapefruit and breast cancer is that they did what is called a "case controlled" study. They went to women with breast cancer and asked them about their dietry habits and coincidentally found a small proportion on average ate grapefruit. Almost certainly a coincidence.
The other kind of study is called cohort, where you start off with X,000 people and follow their progress over a number of years or decades. As you can imagine these are scientifically more accurate. The Enstrom/Kabat study which found no correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer, heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was a cohort, so too ws the WHO paper that said eating 5 portions of fruit a day has no bearing on your chances of any form of cancer.
The major problem with lung cancer case controlled studies is that people fib about actually smoking (called misclassification), scientific papers suggest between 1%-40%. Yes the last figure is 40% in a study of asian women. Also people may fib about when they gave up, ten years ago, more like last week. Finally in case controlled studies lung cancer patients may exaggerate their exposure to SHS, called recall bias. Some after the death of lung cancer patients ask their wife, children and in some cases siblings and cousins!
In two words junk science.
Telling fibs about smoking is quite true and I'm not speaking about being part of a case study.
I had beein telling lies to my own doctor for years about smoking, especially when I copped on that she was an anti smoking fanatic and who went into overdrive about the dangers of smoking even before the smoking ban came in.
I would tell her that I had cut down on the smokes and I hardly ever smoked now as I was trying to give them up. I didnt care if she believed me or not, it was just to shut her up and get her off my back.
That is, until I copped myself on and changed doctors.
I now attend a doctor who is a smoker herself and the difference is amazing.
Only difference is you are waiting longer to see her, because apart from the fact her practice is always packed out, you could be waiting longer while she goes outside for her own fag break.
There is a readable introduction to epidemiology on the bmj website which explains the basics of logitudinal and case/control studies.
http://www.bmj.com/epidem/epid.html
"In two words junk science."
And in ONE word, Dave:
JUNK !!!
(Why dignify rubbish by association with one of Man's noblest pursuits ?)
The grapefruit lark reminds me of that (doubtless apocryphal) tale about the French scientist who strove to prove that fleas heard through their legs - by pulling them off, thereby disabling their ability to jump at the word of command.
He'd get a grant today (and a fire bomb, probably).
PS:
Thanks for the insights - as always.
Ann -
Re:
"a doctor who is a smoker herself"
I think I'm in love.
Please tell the good lady that - if she ever thinks of moving - Hampshire is a really nice county.
I mean, REALLY nice..................
Alas Martin, there was a sting in the tail for the good doctor when, shortly after the smoking ban came in she had to go on the media to defend her right to continue practicing when the Anti scumbags claimed, under the guise that she was passed her sell by date, should retire.
The Anti scumbags didnt like the fact that she smoked while attending her patients and tried to throw her on the scrap heap.
She survived the purge by dropping her public patients and now caters for private patients only.
She now has to go outside for her fag break but her many patients are quite willing to wait.
Ann -
So sorry to hear that.
My God, but I DO detest these creeps.
Never mind the 'boody immigrants', there's a few Britons I'd happily export to Outer Mongolia.
If not Outer Space.
At which point in our recent social history, I wonder, did "I've a right to my opinion" morph into "I've a right to make other people's lives a misery" ?
Too true Martin, the country is overun with these creeps who have lost their sense of place and culture.
Its come to the stage where I'm beginning to wish that I was an immigrant in my own country.
Because apart from being better off, I would have far more freedoms and concessions.