Of all the things I get fed up with, one of the most persistent is the way that science is reported in newspapers. To me it does not seem good enough to phrase a piece of research in an inaccurate way, present it to the public and then revel in the outraged reaction. Phrases like ‘Frankenstein foods‘ are hugely unhelpful to the public’s understanding of science issues. The image of scientists working in mischievous isolation towards some wicked end is misleading and dishonest.
Take this article from the Telegraph for example. It appears to be quoting a scientist when it declares that drinking red wine can help you to live longer. This claim is based upon research suggesting that resveratrol (a chemical found in the skin of grapes) can reduce inflammation in humans. A small scale trial was performed with ten subjects receiving supplements containing resveratrol and ten placebos. It has been known for some time that resveratrol causes yeast, round worms and fruit flies to live longer. Perhaps the effect could be repeated in humans? Quoting the lead scientist, the Buffalo University article promoting the research states…
The study didn’t eliminate the possibility that something in the extract other than resveratrol was responsible for the anti-inflammatory effects.
“The product we used has only 20 percent resveratrol, so it is possible that something else in the preparation is responsible for the positive effects. These agents could be even more potent than resveratrol. Purer preparations now are available and we intend to test those.”
It is great that Buffalo is proud of its hard working research students but it is a huge leap from ‘something that contains an extract also found in grape skins reduces inflammation under laboratory conditions’ to ‘red wine makes you live longer’. Unless you do the research yourself, however, you might not realise this.
This sloppy standard of evidence gathering has wider-reaching implications. Politicians misunderstand the statistics as Vince Cable did in labelling 45% of British science as sub-standard when the document he was quoting actually said that 87% was of international quality and only 2% was below average. Unfortunately, once a lie/misunderstanding is expressed by a high profile politician the damage is done. It takes a lot of reporting to redress the balance, particularly when the story boulsters the public perception that science is not to be trusted.
Questions…
- Name an organism that causes food poisoning.
- What are the four major food groups?
- Name a vitamin, a food that is a good source of it and what benefit it provides you in your diet.
Comments