What to make of conflicting headlines
You surf the net for health information, you scrutinise the newspapers and your favorite magazines for tips on how you can lead a more healthy life and stay stress resistant. Instead, you get a sense that there is no clarity. One expert says this, only to have another say otherwise. We are told that beta-carotene prevents lung cancer... then not; eggs are bad... then good... in moderation; exercise is good for your heart... then exercise can trigger sudden death; caffeine causes heart disease... then not. Frustrated, you throw your arms in the air, hang up your joggin shoes, and head for the nearest fast-food joint to have that $2 double cheeseburger and greasy fries. How can we, humble consumer, make sense of all this?
Not The Same Agenda
A good place to begin unraveling the confusion is the source of information. Journalists and researchers have different agendas, and the confusion arises because the two do not speak the same language. Journalists highlight unique or unusual findings from scientific journals in order to gain your attention. These findings are often presented as the latest thinking in the media. However, research findings which journalists harp on as "breakthroughs" are viewed by the scientific community as "works in progress", and not necessarily conclusive.
Before a finding becomes scientific fact, it has to be verified and confirmed independently by other researchers. That's why good researchers are very reluctant to recommend changes in diet and lifestyle based on a single or limited number of studies. In the research community, the oft-heard mantra is "more research is needed". Thus, first-time findings are not particularly important to scientists because they represent only the "thread" of the research, and not the entire "garment". In fact, researchers view published studies as supporting or refuting existing research. But to reporters, these "threads" make great headlines.
Study Limitation
All scientific studies are limited by the way the study is conducted because each method has its inherent strength and weaknesses. Only when results from all types of studies are viewed collectively can the researcher put the pieces of the puzzle together to form the complete picture. Even then, because of the high standards required of the scientific research process (sometimes governed by ethical considerations), results obtained in vitro (ie. within a test-tube) may not be the same as those in vivio (within the being).
Different Research Designs
1. People Watch
This type of study could be used to find a link between, say Eskimos and Singaporean Indians; whether the differences in their lifestyles and diet affect the occurrence of heart disease or certain types of cancer. The drawbacks of epidemiological studies are that they are limited by factors such as genetics or unreported food consumption that may influence the findings. For instance, many epidemiological studies have found that people who eat a diet that is rich in fruits and vegetables have lower rates of cancers. However, people who eat lots of fruit and vegetables may also have other healthy habits like exercising and not smoking. Hence, it is difficult to establish the real cause and effect. Moreover, these studies establish only general results and not individual ones.
2. Taking The Fake Pill
Animal studies are sometimes used. However, the results may be specific only to animals and are of limited use to humans. Human trials, on the other hand, offer the stongest proof of cause and effect. However, it must be ensured that the participants are randomly assigned to a treatment group. One group receives, for example, a vitamin that is under study. A matched group, called a control group, receives a placebo, or a fake pill. Neither the researcher nor the subject is aware of it until the results are in.
Even then, clinical human trials are not immune to errors. A case in point, is a Finnish study that received much publicity in newspapers all over the world. Reporters highlighted the result of a single study which showed that beta-carotene and vitamin E did not prevent lung cancer -- a finding that went against the established belief in the scientific community. The Finnish study was subsequently criticised for its small sample size of smokers, the short duration of the study and the small dose of vitamins provided in the human trials.
Weighing the Pros & Cons
Putting the results of scientific studies in their perspective is equally important. Understanding th cost and benefit of adopting a particular habit or lifestyle should be a consideration. Is the alternative a safer bet than the present habit? For example, do you give up eating fruits and
vegetables for low-calorie crackers in order to avoid poisoning from pesticides?
The repercussions are you lose out on the health benefits that fruits and vegetables can offer. Secondly, you may have added a low-nutrient food to your diet; perhaps a potentially greater health risk than the small pesticide residue. It is therefore important to "personalise" the pros and cons of making a change for "the better". Consider the bigger picture and how the research findings will affect you. Getting a handle on the potential risk will help you not to over react to the headlines.
Making Sense of it All
Arm yourself with a generous dose of caution and exercise prudence when interpreting headline news on scientific breakthroughs. The following tips will help you out:
Read beyond the headlines
You'd probably be informed about the larger picture, and perhaps, some practical advice that you may find useful. Consider the totality of the research evidence, not just the sensational headline.
Consider the source of the information
View industry-funded reports with some caution; corporate profits may be riding on the result. Instead, consider reports that have been peer-reviewed and are published in established research journals. They are usually are a more credible source of information.
Consider the larger picture
It is more sensible to give up smoking, cut down on fat and exercise more to reduce the risk of cancer than to simply depend on the latest antioxidant research to minimise your health risk. Remember that miracle cures and drugs may be just that -- miracles. And that's not something you can order on prescription.
Labels: breakthroughs, clinical huma trials, conflicting headlines, different agendas, different research designs, health information, pros and cons, scientific fact, study limitation
