The Human Ingredient

THE HUMAN INGREDIENT

After all the discussion on objectivity, reading the David Freedman article, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science,” illustrated how the human motivation taints any attempt of completely removing the human from the research.   As science writers or translators make yet another interpretation of the data, does the science become removed even further from the source?

What comes to mind is the translation of the original biblical texts to today’s version.  Anytime there is a translation, a “spin” is inherently, even if unconsciously, put on the material.  When the New Testament was being compiled by the Council of Nicea, politics and powered determined what was included and what was not.  Today, the interpretation of the chosen texts are greatly diverse.  I choose this example, not because of its scientific worth (obviously), but because it is a very visible illustration of how something regarded as “fact” by some can be manipulated to represent so many different ideas.

Just watching an evening’s worth of TV brings an onslaught of advertisements for pharmaceutical drugs.  And after the lengthy list of side effects that makes me wonder why I would want to take a drug whose side effects are worse than the original affliction, a commercial sponsored by a law firm seeking to collect damages for their clients for the very drugs just advertised airs.  WTF?   Life is better with Viagra, but by the way, it gives you melanoma.  For real.  Depressed?  Take this drug!  Oh, the side effect is suicide…. Well, I guess death is one way to cure depression.

Forty one percent of peer reviewed, top of the pyramid  research papers were wrong or significantly exaggerated???!!!???  What???  So, then who do you trust?  And when a science writer translates the research assumed to be trustworthy, the lie perpetuates and becomes a mainstream mantra --- urban legends that parents pass down with all sincerity to their offspring:  get mammograms, take HRT, become a vampire and never get in the sun, an aspirin a day keeps the doctor away.

Dr. Ioannidis’ insightful observation of how easily the data can be skewed and the reasons why made me realize the exact same criteria with the same result exists for science translators.

1.        The question can be biased.

2.       The need to edit the material – what gets cut.

3.       The material included can be manipulated.

4.       How the data is analyzed.

5.       Where the emphasis is placed.

6.       The need for publication rules the decision making process. 

7.       Potential conflicts of interest can skew the slant presented.

8.       The temptation to exaggerate or change the emphasis of the findings.

I’ve been watching the TV series Masters of Sex which chronicles the work of sex researchers Bill Masters and Virginia Johnson.  I became so intrigued to know the “real” story, I listened to a book that was a biography of their lives.  Surprisingly, the show in its first two season has accurately portrayed what the book outlines.  In the beginning, the research was impeccable, taking decades to go from research files to published papers.  But, after fame and fortune began to squeeze into their lives, sloppier research was traded for timeliness. The time crunch to strike while the iron was hot and publish more books took priority over meticulousness.  I found myself becoming very sad by the conclusion of the book.  Their research was not the first, nor the last, to succumb to outside pressures.

Likewise, I found myself overwhelmed and disturbed by Dr. Ioannidis’ findings.  But, I am also very grateful that he is shining a light on the monster in the closet.