Our trust in science is waning. Do you believe what you hear from scientists? Like many Americans, you may be losing trust in what science is telling you.
A Huffington Post December 2013 poll found that only 36 percent of us have a “lot” of trust in the reliability of scientific information. 78 percent think that scientific studies are often or sometimes tainted by political ideology. And 82 percent believe scientific findings are often or sometimes influenced by the companies sponsoring the research. This is a disquieting trend.
This lack of confidence is especially strong regarding the nutritional and medical professions. One day it’s bad to eat eggs, the next day it’s good. A recent survey conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) underscores how confused we really are:
Seventy-eight percent of the 1,002 respondents indicated they have encountered conflicting information about what constitutes a healthy food. Fifty-six percent felt that the confusion made them doubt the choices they were making food wise. Liz Sanders, director of research and partnerships at the foundation and a co-author of the survey said in a CNN report that:
“Americans rely on many different sources for their information when it comes to what foods to eat and what foods to avoid. Not all of these sources are really highly trusted, and it is likely that these sources share inconsistent information.”
How often have you found yourself or heard a family member dismissing a new nutritional study by saying “Forget it, these reports are too confusing and always changing. I’m going to eat and do what I like.” As it turns out, you and your family member share your confusion with a majority of Americans.
Why Are We Losing Trust In Science?
Setting aside the issue of religious fundamentalism, which can account for some of the mistrust of science, one possibility is the growing unreliability of many medical and nutritional practices and research. In the past few decades, there have been many medical and nutritional ideas that were later proven to be incorrect and even harmful.
Here’s a list of just a few confusing medical and nutritional practices prevalent in the past few decades that may have had a negative impact on your health:
Stents – stents cost about $30k a piece and are performed on over half a million Americans each year but there is little data indicating they prevent stroke.
High Carbohydrate Diets – touted as the cure for heart disease for over 40 years, they have led to an obesity and diabetes epidemic with no clear support for their efficacy.
Arthroscopic Knee Surgery – up to one million surgeries have been performed each year but a systematic review in the British Medical Journal found that for patients with meniscus tears it was no better than exercise therapy.
Vitamin E – long thought to prevent cancer and heart disease. Numerous international studies found no benefit for protection against heart disease, stroke or cancer.
Proton Pumps – the treatment of GERD costs Americans a billion dollars a year. Long term use (greater than 14 days) can lead to serious side-effects, such as such as clostridium difficile infection, pneumonia, and malabsorption of calcium and magnesium leading to bone fractures and cardiac abnormalities.
As is written elsewhere and as you can see from the above list, the health of millions of people is routinely compromised by flawed medical research and practices.
Medical journalist Richard Harris, makes some damaging revelations in Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope and Wastes Billions:
1 – the state of biomedical research
…medical researchers made much more progress between 1950 and 1980 than they did in the following three decades. Consider the development of blood-pressure drugs, chemotherapy, organ transplants, and other transformative technologies. Those all appeared in the decades before 1980.
2 – the development of new pharmaceutical drugs
The rate of drug approval has been falling since the 1950s…if you extrapolate the trend, starting in 1950, you’ll find that drug development comes to a halt in 2040.
In 2005 Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, currently a professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, published the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. It stated:
“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.”
And that “…in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims.”
Ioannidis’ research model indicated that up to 80 percent of non-randomized research studies (the most common kind of study) are wrong, along with twenty-five percent of randomized trials (the supposed gold standard of research). Incredulously, these studies are published in top peer reviewed medical journals.
Much of what our physicians prescribe to us is wrong. Our doctors use research to inform their medical decisions – decisions about what drug to prescribe, which surgery to elect, and the best health strategy to adopt. They are often making crucial treatment decisions for depression, Alzheimer’s, type 2 Diabetes, cancer, obesity, etc. based on bad, incomplete or hidden medical research.
The Evolution of Bad Medical Science
Why is this happening? Why is so much of biomedical research so poorly done?
As it stands now, researchers are typically rewarded (tenure, grants, better jobs, etc.) for publishing a quantity of publications in prestigious journals.
They do this by running small and statistically weak studies (they are easy to do) that produce only positive results since journals tend to not publish negative findings.
Ignoring negative findings.
Publishing only new and exciting findings that journals are looking for.
Never checking old findings for accuracy and replicability.
Changing methodologies in mid-stream to assure positive results.
The result is a proliferation of false and misleading findings that confuse scientists and the rest of us, waste billions of dollars and undermine the scientific endeavour and our health.
To tackle why this is happening, two scientists, Smaldino and McElreath, created a computational model based on evolutionary theory (natural selection) to explain the rising tide of weak biomedical research. They did this by simulating virtual research labs competing under conditions that exist today. The labs that put more effort into their research received fewer publications. The labs that published more received more grants, students and prestige.
The Results
Over numerous simulations and generations, the labs that were most successful (most publications, grants, etc.) passed their approach on to the next generation and proliferated. The labs that did not publish large amounts of research did not get the grants and prestige and did proliferate as readily.
As occurs in natural selection, the most successful labs recreated themselves with greater frequency.
Ed Yong of the Atlantic Monthly summarized the results: “Over time, and across many simulations, the virtual labs inexorably slid towards less effort, poorer methods, and almost entirely unreliable results.”
Conclusion
With the emphasis on quantity of publication, the forces of natural selection will continue to select for poor research, false findings, muddled methodology and accelerating confusion in the world of health and bio medical research. Replicability of findings will continue to falter as poor research studies abound.
The losers in all of this are those of us trying to make sense of what science is telling us so we can live better, more wholesome, and healthier lives.
I'm sure the current users of Steemit are a perceptive bunch and aren't exactly anti-science! Now with all this disinformation being scattered all around it's pretty hard to find your way our of the hole they've created. Thanks go to Collective Evolution for providing this excellent content. Appreciate your interest!
lol - yeah better trust some idiots and housewifes instead of scientists :)
I get your point, in a perfect world you'd always trust the scientists; however, scientists are always needing someone to finance their research, history is littered with questionable scientific conclusions funded by corporate wealth which just so happen to provide information that positively impact that corporation.
Idiots may know nothing, but at least they don't have a vested interest in the crap they're spewing!
What do you do when the major scientists are funded by these monolithic corporations? Go off of limited research and hope for the best, or just say fuck it and go with instincts? Either way it's shit. People are suppressed or scared into silence and the truth is hard to find. Not saying I want this guy as my #1 reliable source of information, critical thinking is key, but you should know this.
So better hear on a jobless idiot never went to school and posting crap in internet or the housewife what got pregnant with 13?
I mean, look on Steemit... lol - thousands of human assborn what know all topics better in their posts while people standing in laboratories in that time and work on that topics. Don`t get me wrong please but that bullshit is seriously even not dicussable in my eyes :)
This comment has received a 1.89 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @heastbistdeppad.
This is really interesting, great post! I'm hugely skeptical when it comes to 'medical science'. I'm always getting into very heated debates with my mother about lifestyles based on science; she almost blindly believes what the majority of news outlets push as scientific fact and I'm the opposite.
I guess we will have to wait 10-20 years to see who really is right :/
Great writeup!
I'm often shocked at what passes the peer review process and gets published. I can understand how people end up totally confused, and begin to mistrust all science. I don't have a science background myself, but I find that having good critical thinking skills makes it a lot easier to separate the wheat from the chaff. We need to teach critical thinking in schools!
Your post is very good, I like it and I think other people too so. Thank you for sharing. I will always follow you, upvote and maybe i will resteem
Upvote your post. Hopefully what I do you will also do in my post, best regards steemit always.
Hi! I am a robot. I just upvoted you! I found similar content that readers might be interested in:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/07/04/how-bad-medical-research-is-destroying-our-health-faith-in-science/
Yeah great post...it's sad but all true. ..I dont trust anything anymore I always wait to see what happens to everybody on the band wagon ...too many sellouts..or greed..Drs. pushing whatever meds their suppliers are whether they are your best option or not..because they get paid too....nobfunding so they just make a guess stc ...lord don't get me started ...Kayleigh :) :)
This article discusses a very important issue that both the scientific community and the general public face nowadays. The political and economic models that underlie research activities need a serious revision.
Regarding the confusion with which medical and nutrition research is met by the public, I'd like to make 3 points:
Humans are complex biological systems with lots of intricate subsystems constantly interacting among each other. Besides the most general aspects or the fundamental biochemical mechanisms which we all share, people should realize that there is no universal detailed prescription of what is or is not healthy. People should try to be conscious of how their habits and behaviors impact them, and change them accordingly.
I don't think it makes much sense to speak about healthy or unhealthy foods. Instead, we should speak about healthy and unhealthy diets. It is the continued pattern of what you eat that will have a cumulative impact on your health, not a single food. Except for those people who have been diagnosed with specific illnesses or conditions which respond very badly to certain foods (food allergies, diabetes, gastric reflux, etc...), all foods and ingredients may be part of a balanced and healthy diet, as long as they are consumed in reasonable proportions. The Food Balance Wheel is a good example of a general guideline of what may constitute a balanced diet.
People should be ware that a single study means very little from a scientific perspective. Until the study is replicated by independent groups using their own methods and similar conclusions are drawn, you cannot regard the results as scientifically demonstrated. Regarding this, the general media usually prefer to make dramatic pieces (and maybe promote something for which they have been sponsored) instead of providing a sober information about what is going on.
This is a systemic problem. From the very ethics of research to the lack of scientific literacy of the general public, everyone is at fault here. Of course that, in the end, the political and economic model is clearly one of the main culprits. Private funding will always invest on research which advances their interests, but public funding can (in theory) be impartial. I believe that the public budget for education and research funding should be higher and more intelligently distributed.
YES! You nailed it.