"Contradicted and potentially exaggerated findings are not uncommon in the most visible and most influential original clinical research."
So summarizes a study into studies reported by medical journals that make it into the news a lot. One study said vitamin E prevents heart attacks, a follow-up study said it doesn't, and "there's no proof that the subsequent studieswere necessarily correct."
Lancet, JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine are journals that don't mind being prominently mentioned in the general news media. But when outed over the contradictory studies, journal editors reacted defensively, as journalists are wont to do:
"The crazy part about science and yet the exciting part about science is you almost never have something that's black and white."
- Editor-in-chief, JAMA
"A single study is not the final word, and that is an important message."
- Editor, New England Journal of Medicine
Uh huh. Funny how rarely the uncertainty principle makes it into news reports. I became a skeptic of "scientific" claims early in life, when 'Prevention' magazine told my parents: "Butter Bad; Margarine Good." Some time later, the "scientifict" facts reversed themselves: ""Butter Good; Margarine Bad." Fine with me -- I couldn't stand the slimely, artificial version of butter.
In the stand-off between Galileo and the Pope, few remember that Galileo insisted the moon circles the sun, that the earth's orbit is circular (despite being told it was elliptical by Kepler), and that the universe is infinite in size. Later studies reversed his findings.
These were some of the facts that Galileo insisted the Pope change in the 'Bible' -- facts we now chuckle at. The nub of the matter is the difference between facts and truth:
* Facts are what we know to be true at this point in time, based on the imperfect knowledge we have acquired, but are subject to change. Facts can be untruthful at times.
* Truths are facts that don't change, but may seem unfactual at times.
Comments