NAS Blog

The media notoriously over-reports epidemiology studies. One day, coffee is bad for you; the next day, it’s the fountain of youth. This isn’t entirely the media’s fault; epidemiology studies, by their very nature, can be tricky and contradictory.

A new study has now possibly linked sexual orientation with cancer. The study was conducted by survey, which is not the strongest design. Participants were asked to report their sexual orientation, whether or not they ever had cancer, and the current state of their health. The study concluded NO difference in cancer prevalence between straight or gay women. However, gay men were 1.9 times as likely to have received a cancer diagnosis as straight men.

According to Reuters, the authors suspect that women also have a higher risk of cancer (even though their own data shows the exact opposite). The authors also appropriately warn us not to generalize the results of the study.

That’s good, because studies like this should not be reported by the mainstream media. Why? Because it’s really hard to draw firm health conclusions from studies based on surveys.

For instance, what if a particular group of people is more likely to go to the doctor than another group? That would skew the results. One of the authors contends that gay people are LESS likely to go to the doctor. But, that would seem to contradict the data. In this study, 8% of gay men had received a cancer diagnosis, but only 5% of straight men had. If gay men were indeed less likely to go to the doctor, then wouldn’t one expect to see fewer cancer diagnoses among gay men, not more?

And, if sexual orientation is linked to cancer, then why is there no difference in the prevalence of cancer between straight and gay women?

Studies like this are very necessary, but are only preliminary. Until follow-up studies can confirm (or refute) the results, the media would be well-advised to avoid them.

Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.

Maybe “scam” is a strong word, but “hyped” probably isn’t.  More and more scientific research is showing that organic and green products don’t live up to expectations–or even to the label, for that matter.

This post by Melinda Moyer describes how so-called “green” household cleaners aren’t any less toxic than regular household cleaners.  In fact, almost any product can claim to be “green” because there are no laws regulating that.  From the piece:

The core of the problem is that there are no laws regulating green marketing, so a company can say its product is all-natural or non-toxic without having to prove anything or even disclose its ingredients on the bottle.

What about organic farming?  Isn’t that supposed to be “green,” too?  Not really.  A recent article by John Stossel in Reason describes how free-range beef, which is marketed partially based on how good it is for the environment, actually emits more greenhouse gases than regular farming methods.  And another article from Discovery News reports on research from the University of Copenhagen which concluded that organic vegetables aren’t any healthier than conventional vegetables.

So, what we’ve got is an industry selling you an idea:  The idea that “natural” is good, and “unnatural” is bad.  This misleads the public into rejecting modern technology and conventional agricultural practices, including techniques like genetic modification.

Does that make organic and green products a scam?  I don’t know, but they sure are expensive.

Alex B. Berezow is the Editor of RealClearScience.  He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.

One of the most depressing articles I’ve ever read in my entire life describes the problem American students face when pondering a career in science. For years, the conventional wisdom was that our education system was failing to properly educate our children in STEM subjects (science, tech, engineering, and math). However, this article in Miller-McCune directly challenges this assumption.

The authors contend that the real problem facing American students is a lack of careers in science. The case they make is compelling: Although the number of graduates receiving Ph.D.’s has increased, the number of job opportunities has not kept pace. This trend is particularly noticeable in academia, where young Ph.D.’s spend years as post-docs, with only a small chance of ever landing a permanent position as a professor. Indeed, the average age of a scientist who earns his first independent NIH grant– a huge milestone in the medical science field– has risen from a researcher’s late 20s/early 30s to the ripe old age of 42.

One of the biggest causes indicated in this article is the flood of foreigners who are willing to take post-doc positions. It doesn’t take an economist to realize that a massive increase in labor supply will both eat up opportunities and drive down salaries. Post-doc positions, which were once viewed as prestigious, are now treated as temporary, cheap labor. With such a dismal prospect for career advancement and compensation, it’s no wonder that American students would rather get an MBA or MD… or to forgo higher education altogether.

Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are working together to create a national identification card with biometric technology. The purpose of the card will be to curb illegal immigration. Because all citizens will be required to carry one, employers will have no excuse to hire illegal immigrants.

Predictably, privacy advocates are already up in arms over the proposal. According to the article (see link above), one of the major objections is that the government will be able to track citizens. However, this concern makes little sense in today’s digitized world. If you use a credit card, debit card, or cell phone, the government can already track you wherever you go.

The biometric data, undoubtedly, will also cause a stir. Early indications about the bill (which is still being developed in the Senate) seem to show that the biometric data will either be a fingerprint or a scan of the veins on the back of one’s hand. I assume that if DNA was the biometric of choice, this issue would go from controversial to downright explosive. Fortunately, that probably won’t be the case.

In an age of globalization and terrorism, it may be time for the United States to implement a national ID card. At the very least, it’s time to have this discussion. Hopefully it goes better than the health care discussion.

In a bold move, Superintendent Frances Gallo fired every single teacher from Central Falls High School, one of the worst-performing schools in the state.  Gallo had offered the teachers a plan to improve school performance, which included a 25-minute longer school day, increased tutoring, eating lunch with the students, and a summer training course.  The school offered the teachers an additional $30 per hour for the additional work.

The teachers’ union rejected the plan because they wanted $90 per hour.  So Gallo fired all of them.  (It should also be pointed out that R.I. teachers’ average salary is already higher than the national average.)   US Education Secretary Arne Duncan applauded the superintendent.

So do I.  This story represents yet more evidence that teachers’ unions are destroying education in America.  It’s about time somebody stood up to them.

The writing is on the wall.  China will overtake the U.S. in scientific output in the near future.  A couple reports make this conclusion almost inevitable.

First, a recent post on the blog of the internationally renowned journal Science indicates the rise of China in scientific productivity.  For instance, China ranks second only to the U.S. in number of journal publications.  Also, China is increasing its investment in science education and research.  Additionally, for many scientific indicators, “the slope of the line is accelerating rather than decelerating.”

Secondly, American education is mediocre at best.  In a 2006 study of  several different countries and economic areas conducted by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), U.S. students consistently ranked “below average” for proficiency in math and science.  The U.S. ranked 18th in science and 24th in math out of 30 (OECD) countries.  In math, the U.S. was not only outperformed by Japan and Germany, but it was also (embarrassingly) outperformed by former communist countries such as Hungary, Poland, and Czech Republic.  When economic areas (such as Taipei or Hong Kong) were included, the U.S. fared even worse.  (The 56-page executive summary can be found here.)

Finally, it should be pointed out that countries that outperformed the U.S. in education often spent less money on it.  For instance, as a percentage of GDP, the U.S. (5.7%) outspent Poland (5.6%), Hungary (5.5%), Germany (4.6%), and Japan (3.6%).

What does it all mean?  It’s pretty straightforward:  With U.S. students falling behind much of the westernized world in math and science proficiency, it is only a matter of time before China will overtake us as the global leader in science and technology.  However, this could probably be prevented if we fix our decidedly mediocre K-12 education system. Reforming the quality of our education is the key to the solution.  Throwing more money at the problem is certainly not.

By now, most of the world has heard of “Climategate”– the e-mail scandal surrounding the Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK. (If you are unfamiliar with the story, you can catch up with this Wikipedia article.) In short, hackers broke into the university’s e-mail system and posted on the internet private communications between climate researchers, and the e-mails are far from flattering. Besides gloating over the death of a climate change skeptic, the e-mails show concerted efforts by the researchers to manipulate temperature data, to block public access to their data, and (perhaps most disturbingly) to exclude skeptical or critical researchers from the peer review process. While it may be too early to describe this behavior as “scientific fraud,” it is certainly appropriate to label it “unethical.”

The New York Times‘s John Tierney wrote an excellent piece about this scandal and its implications for climate change advocates. Tierney points out that the climate researchers involved became “so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate[d] their certitude — and ultimately undermine[d] their own cause.”

What this situation also reveals is that scientists who become public policy advocates can lose the most important characteristic they have: objectivity. Scientists must accept data for what it is, not what they wish it to be. Scientists must deal with contradictory data, not ignore it. And most importantly, scientists must be transparent with their research and the conclusions they draw, not secretive. However, these ethical principles become far more difficult to uphold when scientists become activists.

To be sure, “Climategate” does not disprove global climate change, but it absolutely raises the suspicions of a general public who is often leery of science to begin with. Furthermore, scandals such as this damage not only the researchers involved but the entire scientific endeavor itself.

Scientists who become public policy advocates must walk a fine line.  Unfortunately, the researchers at East Anglia crossed that line.