Eighteen thoughts on the nature of science

By Joe Schwartz, PhD

The following ideas can help you evaluate information you encounter
about science and health. Science is a truth-seeking process. It is not a
collection of unassailable "truths." It is, however, a self-correcting
discipline.

Such corrections may take a long time - the medical practice of
bloodletting went on for centuries before its futility was realised - but
as scientific knowledge accumulates, the chance of making substantial
errors decreases. Certainty is elusive in science, and it is often hard to
give categorical "Yes" or "No" answers to scientific questions.

To determine whether bottled water is preferable to tap water, for
example, one would have to design a lifelong study of two large
groups of people whose llfestyles were similar in all respects except for
the type of water they consumed.

This is virtually impossible. We therefore have to rely on less-direct
evidence in formulating many of our conclusions.

It may not be possible to predict all consequences of an action, no
matter how much advance research has been done.

When chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were introduced as refrigerants, no
one could have predicted that 30 years later they would have an
impact on the ozone layer.

If something undesirable happens, it is not necessarily because
someone has been negligent. Any new finding should be examined
with skepticism. Healthy skepticism does not mean unwillingness to
believe. Skeptics base their beliefs on scientific proof and do not
swallow information uncritically.

No major lifestyle change should be based on any one study. Results
should be independently confirmed by others.

Keep in mind that science does not proceed by "miracle
breakthroughs" or "giant leaps".

It plods along, taking many small steps, slowly building towards a
consensus. Studies have to be carefully interpreted by experts in the
field.

Any association of two variables does not necessarily imply cause and
effect. As an extreme example, consider the strong association between
breast cancer and the wearing of skirts. Obviously, wearing skirts does
not cause the disease.

Scientists, however, sometimes show an amazing aptitude for coming
up with inappropriate rationalisations for their pet theories. Repeating
a
false notion does not make it true.

Many people are convinced that sugar causes hyperactivity in
children -
not because they have examined studies to this effect but because
they
have heard that it is so. In fact, a slate of studies has demonstrated
that, if anything, sugar has a calming effect on children.

Nonsensical lingo can sound very scientific. An ad for a type of algae
states that "the molecular structure of chlorophyll is almost the same
as
that of hemoglobin, which is responsible for carrying oxygen
throughout
the body. Oxygen is the prime nutrient and chlorophyll is the central
molecule for increasing oxygen available to your system."

This is nonsense. Chlorophyll does not transport oxygen in the blood.

There often are legitimate opposing views on scientific issues. But it is
incorrect to conclude that science cannot be trusted because for every
study there is an equal and opposite study.

It is always important to take into account who carried out a given
study, how well it was designed, and whether anyone stands to gain
financially from the results.

Be mindful of who the "they" is in "they say that . . . ." In many cases,
what they say" is only gossip, inaccurately reported.

Annual studies are not necessarily relevant to humans, although they
may
provide much valuable information.

Penicillin, for example, is safe for humans but toxic for guinea pigs.
Rats do not require vitamin C as a dietary nutrient but humans do.
Feeding
high doses of a suspected toxin to test animals for short periods of
time
may not accurately reflect the effect on humans exposed to tiny doses
over
long periods of time.

Whether a substance is a poison or a remedy depends on the dosage.
It makes no sense to talk about the effects of certain substances on the
body without talking about amounts.

Licking an aspirin tablet will do nothing for a headache, but swallowing
two tablets will make the headache go away. Swallowing a whole
bottle of
pills will make the patient go away.

"Chemical" is not a dirty word. Chemicals are the building blocks of
our
world. They are neither good nor bad.

Nitroglycerin can alleviate the pain of angina or blow up a building.
The
choice is ours. Furthermore, there is no relation between the risk posed
by a substance and the complexity of its name.

"Dihydrogen monoxide" is just water. Nature is not benign. The
deadliest toxins known, such as ricin from castor beans or botulin
from the Clostridium botulinum bacterium, are perfectly natural.

"Natural" does not equal "safe," and "synthetic" does not equal
"dangerous." The properties of any substance are determined by its
molecular structure, not by whether it was synthesised by a chemist in
a
lab or by nature in a plant.

Perceived risks are often different from real risks. Food poisoning
from microbial contamination is a far greater health risk than trace
pesticide residues oil fruits and vegetables.

The human body is incredibly complex. Our health is determined by
many variables, which include genetics, our diet, our mother's diet
during pregnancy, stress, level of exercise, exposure to microbes,
exposure to occupational hazards, and pure luck.

While diet clearly plays a role in the promotion of good health, the
effectiveness of specific foods or nutrients in the treatment of diseases
is usually overstated.

Individual foods are not good or bad, although overall diet may be
described as such. The wider the variety of foods consumed, the
smaller the chance that important nutrients will be lacking.

There is universal agreement among scientists that a high
consumption of fruits and vegetables is beneficial.

About 80% of illnesses are self-limiting and will resolve in response to
almost any kind of treatment. Often, a remedy will receive undeserved
credit.

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable, because positive results are much
more likely to be reported than negative ones. There is no goose that
lays
golden eggs. In other words, if something sounds too good to be true,
it
probably is.

As HL Mencken once said, "Every complex problem has a solution
that
is simple, direct, plausible, and wrong."

Joe Schwartz is Director of McGill University's Office for Chemistry
and
Society in Canada.

In addition to teaching chemistry at McGill, he hosts a weekly
"phone-in" show about chemistry on Montreal radio station CJAD,
writes a weekly column called "The Right Chemistry" in the Montreal
Gazette, and has a regular TV feature entitled "Joe's Chemistry Set" on
the Canadian Discovery Channel.

This article was adapted from a section of his book Radar, Hula Hoops
and
Playful Pigs, a collection of commentaries on the fascinating chemistry
of
everyday life.

======================================

Best,

Bob


**********************************************
Robert A. Fink, M. D., F.A.C.S., P. C.
2500 Milvia Street  Suite 222
Berkeley, California  94704-2636
Telephone:  510-849-2555   FAX:  510-849-2557
WWW:  http://www.dovecom.com/rafink/

mailto:[log in to unmask]

"Ex Tristitia Virtus"

*********************************************