Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Allison has received funding from the National Institutes of Health for the Nutrition Obesity Research Center (NORC) which he heads. He holds several other NIH grants, including one of the Common Fund's NIH Director's Transformative Research Awards entitled "Energetics, Disparities, & Lifespan: A unified hypothesis". He has also received funding from the National Science Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State of Alabama, the American Diabetes Association, and numerous other government, notfor-profit, and for-profit organizations. Dr. Allison has consulted with numerous entities including the Federal Trade Commission, The Frontiers Foundation, the Food and Drug Administration, the United States Postal Inspectors Service, the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons, and many other government, not-for-profit, and for-profit organizations. He frequently serves as a consultant, especially to the pharmaceutical industry, food and beverage industries, universities, and litigators.
Dr. Brown is supported by intramural funding from UAB and government funding from the National Institutes of Health. The University of Alabama at Birmingham has received unrestricted gifts and grants from numerous not-for-profit and for-profit organizations, including Coca-Cola, the sponsor of this webinar, and many other food, pharmaceutical, and other companies, some of which have supported Drs. Allisons and Browns work. Drs. Allison and Brown do not advocate for or against any particular policies. Drs. Allison and Brown only advocate for science. They speak for themselves and their views do not necessarily represent those of UAB or any other organization. Drs. Allison and Brown had complete editorial control over the content of this presentation and developed it themselves.
Office of Energetics
Considerations
We will primarily focus on biomedical human studies (our expertise). Our comments reflect what we think is important from two scientists points of view.
Our comments may reflect what we think science should be, not necessarily how it is.
We are not journalists, and we understand that journalists have other pressures and purposes in writing than just translating studies in a vacuum.
Outline
1. Science communication is important 2. Fundamental characteristics of science 3. Details from a study that help to evaluate the science 4. Putting research into perspective 5. Positive example 6. Final Thoughts 7. Resources
Interest in Science
Sources Used by Public for Information
Reports of correlations are increasingly accompanied by reminders that correlation does not equal causation.
Headline vs Study
Headline Skipping breakfast to lose weight makes you fatter - and far more likely to raid the vending machine. Study Presentation at proceedings; MRI results and observations of how much subjects ate at lunch after skipping breakfast. No body weight, no vending machines. Headline US Farm Subsidy Policies Contribute To Worsening Obesity Trends, Study Finds. Paper There is no study paper is an authors commentary/review on farm subsidies. Headline Drinking 5 cups of coffee everyday may lead to obesity: study. Headline Wrong amount of coffee could kill you. Study: A study of mice, involving a substance found in coffee, but no coffee, showed no significant weight gain, and reported no deaths.
For references, see: ObesityandEnergetics.org.
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. Mark Twain
Outline
1. Science communication is important 2. Fundamental characteristics of science 3. Details from a study that help to evaluate the science 4. Putting research into perspective 5. Positive example 6. Final Thoughts 7. Resources
Fundamentals of Science
Falsifiability
Can the assertion be proven false?
Uncertainty
How confident are we in our conclusions?
Reproducibility
Can the phenomenon be replicated?
Skepticism
Are there alternative explanations?
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Le, A., et al. The geographic distribution of obesity in the US and the potential regional differences in misreporting of obesity. Obesity 2013.
Outline
1. Science communication is important 2. Fundamental characteristics of science 3. Details from a study that help to evaluate the science 4. Putting research into perspective 5. Positive example 6. Final Thoughts 7. Resources
Rodents: Species Sex Strain (may be important to scientists, but probably not readers)
Can we adequately extrapolate from the measured outcome to the effect of interest?
Example: Measure single meal food intake to estimate changes in obesity prevalence
Gold Standard
Observational
No Comparison
Not Human
Not Evidence
Schwitzer 2010. Covering Medical Research: A Guide for Reporting on Studies
www.daviddarling.info/images/life_span_of_animals.jpg
Outline
1. Science communication is important 2. Fundamental characteristics of science 3. Details from a study that help to evaluate the science 4. Putting research into perspective 5. Positive example 6. Final Thoughts 7. Resources
If a scientist says he or she is the first to discover or demonstrate something you have heard of, it likely means: 1) Lots of conditions and caveats. 2) The scientist is wrong (less common).
Exaggeration
Headline: Eating lots of meat and cheese in middle age is as deadly as SMOKING
Source: www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article2573088/Eating-lots-meat-cheese-middleage-deadly-SMOKING.html
Human Audiences
Interest matters:
1) The data
2) The methods used to generate the data 3) The logic connecting the data to conclusions All else is tangential
We love stories
We remember stories We particularly like stories about other humans
The human element is useful for embellishment and interest, not for scientific conclusions.
Outline
1. Science communication is important 2. Fundamental characteristics of science 3. Details from a study that help to evaluate the science 4. Putting research into perspective 5. Positive example 6. Final Thoughts 7. Resources
Subheadings include:
Introduction
Where did the story come from? What kind of research was this? What did the research involve?
What were the basic results? How did the researchers interpret the results? Conclusion
Outline
1. Science communication is important 2. Fundamental characteristics of science 3. Details from a study that help to evaluate the science 4. Putting research into perspective 5. Positive example 6. Final Thoughts 7. Resources
Utility Analysis: Scientific Knowledge is a Necessary but Insufficient Basis for Logical Decision Making
Two Roulette Tables Table A Table B Probability of Black 0.6 0.4 Probability of Red 0.4 0.6
Utility Analysis: Scientific Knowledge is a Necessary but Insufficient Basis for Logical Decision Making
Two Roulette Tables Table A Table B Probability of Black 0.6 0.4 Probability of Red 0.4 0.6 Value of Black $100 $1,000 Value of Red -$1,000 -$100 Utility -$340 $340
Utility Analysis: Scientific Knowledge is a Necessary but Insufficient Basis for Logical Decision Making
Two Roulette Tables Table A Table B Science can only Probability of Black 0.6 0.4 ascertain what is, but not Probability of Red 0.4 0.6 what should be, and Value of Black $100 $1,000 outside of its domain Value of Red -$1,000 -$100 value judgments of all Utility -$340 $340 kinds remain necessary.
Albert Einstein
Two Public Health Policies (clinical treatments, etc.) Action A Action B Probability of Desired Outcome 0.3 0.7 Probability of Undesired Outcome 0.7 0.3 Value of Desired Outcome Value of Undesired Outcome Utility ??? ???
Science
Values
Outline
1. Science communication is important 2. Fundamental characteristics of science 3. Details from a study that help to evaluate the science 4. Putting research into perspective 5. Good Examples 6. Positive example 7. Final Thoughts 8. Resources
Resources
http://nationalpress.org/ Latest obesity and energetics research: www.obesityandenergetics.com
https://bookofbadarguments.com/
http://www.nhs.uk/News/Pages/NewsIndex.aspx
www.senseaboutscience.org www.healthnewsreview.org
let