|
Epi Wit & Wisdom Articles
Readers Continue to Respond to
Taubes Interview (6 of 6)
[Editor’s Note: We continue to
receive letters about our interview with Gary Taubes and some of our
readers have expressed the hope that we continue publishing them to
maintain the ongoing discussion. Here are three additional letters.]
Taubes’ Views Getting Too Much
Attention
Dear Editor,
I had a fair amount of
ambivalence about the interview with Gary Taubes published in the June
issue. One reaction is that we are giving far too much attention to
this individual. You may have already seen the response that several
others and I published in Science, which indicated that his comments
from our interviews were very much taken out of context and used to
paint a picture that was highly unbalanced. I think your interviewer
put it right: he was predetermined to construct a cathedral, finding
bits and pieces of interviews to make his point.
I think every serious person in
the field of epidemiology realizes that every study is imperfect and
that we always need to try to improve our methods. However, this can
probably be said about virtually every area of science. Some of the
problems he mentioned are probably even greater in other spheres,
particularly in laboratory sciences. For example, the FASEB Journal
actually says in their instructions to authors that the publication of
negative studies is strongly discouraged. Probably as a result of this
mentality we are seeing a whole rash of small studies relating
molecular markers to disease—published in journals like Nature and
Science—that are really rubbish, and it will take a long time for
sound epidemiologic studies to sort them out.
Taubes makes the claim that 90
percent of papers in physics journals are wrong and that epidemiology
journals are actually worse, without any supporting evidence. I
strongly doubt that this is correct. In the end, his main argument
seems to be that the main problem with epidemiology is that its
results are published in the general media. This is really a very
different issue than bad science. I think real problems do exist;
definitely there are many things in this interface that could be
improved, but part of the issue is that the public wants to be part of
the process, just as they want to know more than just the verdict of
the O. J. Simpson trial or the last game of the World Series.
That is the negative side of the
interview; on the plus side, I think your interviewer asked the right
questions and he exposed many of the weaknesses of Taubes’ argument.
Overall though, I am not sure this was worth the trouble or the pages.
Walter C. Willet, MD, DrPH
••••••••••••••••••••••
Journalists Often Act as Brokers
in Epidemiologists’ “Sale” of Research Results
Dear Editor,
Gary Taubes’ contention, that
epidemiologists need to be extremely critical of their own “findings”
is unarguable. All good journalists understand that there is much room
for confounding and bias in the interpretation of epidemiologic
studies, and that some epidemiologists will dredge data to serve a
pre-ordained mission. There is no question that nutritional
epidemiology, for example, is rife with this problem. It is also the
case that epidemiologists seem particularly prone to stretch the
implications of their findings when speaking with the press. It is not
uncommon for an epidemiologist to overstate his case in an interview,
only to complain of being “misquoted” in the next day’s paper. Of
course, that doesn’t keep him or her from flying to New York to appear
on Nightline that night...
Where Taubes was perhaps a bit
simplistic was in his implication that this problem is peculiar to
epidemiology. I have had atmospheric chemists, physicians,
paleobiologists, and yes, even physicists, tell me things in
interviews that they would never try to put past their peers. As one
neuroscientist told me nearly ten years ago: “a quote in the New York
Times is worth any number of professional papers.” It seems that more
and more scientists agree, and are leaping to press conferences rather
than back to the drawing board where they belong. I am almost certain
that funding cuts have something to do with this, as does the
increasing influence on science of corporate sponsors. In a climate of
intense competition for patents, products, and research funds,
scientists are finding themselves in the awkward position of having to
“sell” their results, and unfortunately, too many science writers are
willing brokers in the sale.
As a teacher of science
journalism, I warn my students of this problem, of scientists putting
ideology or dogma or ego ahead of truth. These scientists are the
minority, to be sure, probably the vast minority. But they gather far
more than their fair share of front page real estate and, as a
consequence, of funding. As Taubes suggests, epidemiologists and all
scientists should attempt to discourage this practice, by rewarding
and publishing the work of scientists who perform good experiments and
come up with negative results. Until this is the case, epidemiology as
well as other fields in science, will be plagued and even dominated by
those who claim that the naked emperor is clothed.
Ellen Ruppel Shell
••••••••••••••••••••••
Epidemiology: Science of the
People, For the People
Dear Editor,
I have been reading the debate
between Gary Taubes and the esteemed professionals of the
epidemiological discipline, and I am finding myself, as a young
epidemiologist, in dismay over the content of the exchange. I recently
saw a movie which added to my thinking about hard science and soft
science: Get Shorty. Here’s a brief discussion between two of the
characters:
“I just read that most people
die in bed, so I think I have the answer.”
“What?”
“I’ll just sleep in my
recliner!”
Of course, epidemiologists
realize that issues of causation play a role here, but “hard
scientists” may just see two not-so-scientifically-inclined characters
displaying evidence of bad science, instigated by the “soft science”
of epidemiology.
I feel no insecurities about my
discipline, even after seeing the movie Get Shorty. Epidemiologists
hold a unique, invaluable and necessary position in the world of
science. It is our responsibility to relate science to the human
experience. As epidemiologists we are supposed to both interpret the
human experience and present those findings not only to the scientific
community, but to the many communities of people we are hoping to
assist through an understanding of how they relate to their
environment, each other, and to those agencies or governments which
have an effect upon their lives. Therefore, we must understand how the
general public understands and relates to science and scientific
findings, because our work is directly related to improving the health
and well-being of the general public.
Epidemiologists are creating a
new path for science to follow which does not disregard the
application of its findings to the general population. As
epidemiologists explore how to improve the health and well-being of
individuals, we will contribute to a better science that does not bury
itself underground smashing invisible pieces of air, hoping that some
day such research might mean something. Instead, epidemiologists will
illuminate the scientific community as to how science can improve the
health and well-being of people and how science can be guided by the
needs of the people.
Kenneth Legins, MPH
Published October 1996 v
|
