It be all meta up in here.
So my mom sent me this: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science. Go on and read the article. I’ll wait.
I read it and had some thoughts.
What is in there is not inconsistent with believing in the results of good science. The problem is evaluating what is good science, and not getting it oversimplified or distorted. This part:
“In poring over medical journals, he was struck by how many findings of all types were refuted by later findings. […] And they sometimes make headlines, as when in recent years large studies or growing consensuses of researchers concluded that mammograms, colonoscopies, and PSA tests are far less useful cancer-detection tools than we had been told; or when widely prescribed antidepressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil were revealed to be no more effective than a placebo for most cases of depression; or when we learned that staying out of the sun entirely can actually increase cancer risks; or when we were told that the advice to drink lots of water during intense exercise was potentially fatal; or when, last April, we were informed that taking fish oil, exercising, and doing puzzles doesn’t really help fend off Alzheimer’s disease, as long claimed. Peer-reviewed studies have come to opposite conclusions on whether using cell phones can cause brain cancer, whether sleeping more than eight hours a night is healthful or dangerous, whether taking aspirin every day is more likely to save your life or cut it short, and whether routine angioplasty works better than pills to unclog heart arteries.”
is, to my mind, probably a symptom of media oversimplifying complex studies and of consumers and doctors not understanding the primary sources. For example, the part about water and exercise? It’s STILL a good idea to drink water while exercising, but not to the point of depleting your electrolytes and imbalancing yourself. Like, duh. Nothing in excess. Athletes have known this for a long time.
The antidepressant pills have *always* been known to be not that great (though this wasn’t always publicized well), and some of them may even increase suicidal thoughts. But for some people, sometimes, they do work — even if it is a placebo effect, that still helps people. There is *still* no good explanation for how their biochemical changes ameliorate depression, but sometimes it works. Sometimes not. This isn’t new.
The mammograms-aren’t-a-panacea thing I’ve been hearing for several years, largely from feminists who advocate that putting too much attention on getting women mammograms all the time ignores things like heart disease and domestic violence, which have a far greater impact on far more women, in favor of trendy pink things that are funded by certain multimillion-dollar agencies. (Certainly, mammograms for all! Yes! And genetic testing! But apparently the treatment after your diagnosis has not improved in its dignity, humanity, side effects, or possibly even effectiveness. Why are we making pink stand mixers and tape measures instead of fixing this?)
People who are used to critically evaluating science and how it gets reported won’t be surprised by anything in this article. But far too few people have the skills and abilities and desire to do that. Also, the article makes the good point that chasing money can corrupt anyone, which it does. (Again, duh. If your study is founded by a drug company, you tend to find that the drug works. Duh!)
People don’t conduct good studies unless they have been specifically trained to do so. Doctors don’t usually get this training. Peer review has broken down when bad studies get published, but you have to ask who the peer reviewers are. Many of the cognitive biases that scientists have, which are pointed out in the article, are normal biases that EVERYONE has. Again, rigorous training in research methodology can make those less likely, but no person is immune from those biases (even those who study the biases)! Ioannidis has his own biases, too, because he is a human being; I believe most of what he says, though.
Even the journalist of this article makes a common error here: “(one large randomized controlled trial even proved that secret prayer by unknown parties can save the lives of heart-surgery patients, while another proved that secret prayer can harm them)“.
There is no such thing as PROVING a theory. The word proof is misleading. I do believe that the study found that secret prayer is associated with recovery from heart surgery; there are a lot of spurious correlations out there. But finding SUPPORT for a hypothesis is *NOT* the same as *proving* it is “true”. Again I say: science education, people!
Um, is that enough ranting for you?
#2 says: Hm, I wonder if I should add this article to my stats final… Usually the Atlantic has much higher quality science stuff. The way I see it: Correlation is not causation, but in order to have causation you first need to demonstrate correlation. That’s what all those random results on food and exercise that come out of the Harvard nurses study do. Second: 5 percent of the time you’re going to get things wrong with a 95% confidence bar. And if you have a small sample size, you’re more likely to get an insignificant result even if there is a true effect (and 5 % of the time you get a bizarre result because you randomly grabbed some outliers). Replication is important!