Don’t Jump To Conclusions

Science has undoubtedly propelled our knowledge to a great degree. It seems each day we awake to a new study that has been published that promises great findings. This interests me deeply, even when I was younger I remember how captivated I was by science at large. I dreamed of how they could tweeze out the minor details that make such a massive difference in our existence. From elements discovered in materials to differences in DNA telomere lengths, what a compelling phenomenon-understanding cause and effect. However, the major flaw that often arises due to the fast flowing river of research is the errors in interpretation of studies which paradoxically lead to misinformation.

I’ve got a great friend of mine, Ali, who recently began working as an interpreter. He mentioned how confusing interpreting can be because there are several different dialects. Even though Ali grew up speaking Arabic he still has a hard time getting the messages translated to English from time to time. This same problem arises in scientific research. The language barrier is the first obstacle to overcome. The research papers follow a specific format that is easy for researchers, but proves to be challenging to the lay individual. In fact there are specific college level courses that are devoted just to learning how to understand research studies, not to mention the separate courses on statistics as well. Many of you likely haven’t taken these classes, so when you come across a new study the likelihood of you misinterpreting the information is high. This problem is elevated when you consider that research is made public, which is an amazing thing indeed, but proves problematic if you are untrained to interpret the information properly. Once science is released publicly, the internet gets the messages out fast, a long host of unqualified “interpreters” are lined up to post about it. They decode the messages in ways that are not necessarily true, making headliners rather than facts. This makes for an odd game of telephone, as more headliners appear the messages make a further dissociation to the raw study itself. This leads us to a valley of misinformed people.

Perhaps you’re the fraction of the population who has taken the appropriate classes to understand these studies. We are still not problem free. The next thing to consider while evaluating a studies draw is to look into who contributed to funding the study. This special interest between company and researcher is linked to money. In sales of any kind, we want to educate people about why our product/service works or why it is necessary. This feature-benefit presentation provides the consumer with a vital education promise that persuades him/her to take action and spend money. What better way to convince someone to buy something than to have a study produced that shows that your product is efficacious. Here is where we find many companies “donating” money to research to produce compelling results in search of specific data that will hype the companies claims. Believe it or not, the most notorious area of research that is swayed by company investment is the diet/nutrition/supplement industry. For example, a New York Times investigation unfolded that Coca-Cola had been quietly funding researchers and organizations (totaling 118.6 million dollars) that diverted the conversation about obesity away from calorie control and instead pushed the argument that we just need to move more. They pay a pretty penny to keep their poison selling, but it is nothing compared to their 2018 earnings totaling at 31.9 billion. Investing 0.4% of the earnings to keep profits high and consumers misinformed is a no brainer to a CEO, as it’s costing him near nothing, yet it is wreaking havoc on the health of our society at large. When a study comes out that can allow you to see that exercise is the only issue, we let our diet decisions dwindle in the importance it deserves. This expands to every major brand.

As the company continues to grow in size, the money they can use to manipulate grows as well. These companies then hire researchers to search for a particular outcome that will strengthen the companies agenda rather than letting the outcome be provided based upon the reasonable scientific method. This is often seen by something termed as p-hacking. Coined by Regina Nuzzo, she describes p-hacking as the conscious or subconscious manipulation of data in a way that produces a desirable p-value or better understood as a desired percentage  (95% or above). Studies have to have a minimum accuracy rate of 95% to be considered true and publishable. For example, let’s say we preformed a study that was observing if whether or not children who had a past cavity in the last year were more likely to have a cavity in the future. You would gather a  large group of children together. These children would have different genders, ages, and ethnicity of course so you would document that and categorize them appropriately based upon the demographic. Perhaps then we observe and find that with each demographic, other than the females, got cavities in the future. Let’s assume that equated to a 65% accuracy. This would not be able to publish due to its insignificant p-value (65%). However, with p-hacking you may exclude all females, then the accuracy would be above 95% and you could publish the study. Unfortunately, p-hacking occurs without informing anyone, leaving only the scientist aware of the facts behind the evidence and the public majorly misinformed.

These facts need to be known because today’s society is strongly swayed by the influence of science and the studies that are being produced. I don’t suggest that we throw the studies out of the picture because there is quality research being produced. Rather, I believe we need to be slow to jump to conclusions based upon studies. Too often I see articles that are misinterpretations of quite well done studies. The article will instead take a snapshot of the abstract (summary) and conclude the most “catchy” headliner to attract attention. Each study should be reviewed with a keen eye focused on how the study was preformed, who funded it, and how is it being interpreted. If your enjoying my blog, you’ll love my podcast check it out if your looking to upgrade your health and wellness.