Category Archives: Scientist/layperson relations

The inevitable follow-up to the last breastfeeding post.

Posted on by

I think after this one, we’ll be ready to move on to cow (or soy) milk and solids!
My last post on the breastfeeding issue pointed you to an academic examination of some of the claims being advanced in support of the superiority of breastfeeding. Joseph from Corpus Callosum left a detailed comment expressing some dissatisfaction with that examination. You really should read the whole comment, but his main points are roughly:

  1. You can find evidence that supporters of breastfeeding are biased, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t also biased.
  2. In a body of scientific literature, we ought to weigh not only how recent a study is, but also its quality. (So, for example, it may be fine to rely on an older study over a more recent one if the older one is better — where “better”, of course, would be judged by scientific criteria rather than on agreement with the result you were hoping the research would support.)
  3. It’s not enough to simply point out flaws with the scientific case that is being made to support breastfeeding if there exist reasonably rigorous studies that shed light on the issue (especially if they end up supporting the conclusion for which the shoddy case is being offered as support).

It’s hard to argue with Joseph’s points. The Goldin et al. didn’t give a comprehensive analysis of all the available literature. Then again, it seems like it was intended as a rapid response to a news item that was creating a buzz. As I noted in my last post, the scientific research is certainly suggestive that breastfeeding is a Very Good Thing as far as infant health is concerned. The contentious issue seems to be how big the risk of not exclusively breastfeeding. And here, I’m not sure I’m in complete agreement with Joseph’s take on things. He writes:

Continue reading→

What are the real benefits of breastfeeding? Statisticians weigh in.

Posted on by

A few days ago I pondered the ethical dimensions of breastfeeding given a recent article trumpeting its astounding benefits for infants and mothers. Those ethical considerations took as given that the claims trumpeting in the article were more or less true.
Today, I want to point you to an examination of those very claims by Rebecca Goldin (Director of Research, Statistical Assessment Service, Assistant Professor, Mathematical Sciences at George Mason University), Emer Smyth (Assistant Professor of Pharmacology at Univ. of Pennsylvania), and Andrea Foulkes (Assistant Professor of Biostatistics at Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst). Will it surprise you that the data don’t seem to support the conclusion that breastmilk has miraculous powers?

Continue reading→

Breast-feeding and SUV-driving: what are the ethically relevant differences?

Posted on by

I’m not sure I realized it while I was writing it, but my last post (on whether scientific knowledge about the benefits of breast-feeding imposes any particular obligations) has me thinking about another kind of case where scientific knowledge might — or might not — bring ethical consequences.
That case? Global warming.
My big question, thinking about these two instances where scientific knowledge, individual decisions, and public policy all coalesce, is what the relevant differences are.

Continue reading→

The science on breast-feeding (and what we ought to do about it).

Posted on by

There’s an interesting article in the New York Times about efforts by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to promote breast-feeding. Proponents of breast-feeding point to quite a lot of science that supports advantages — for child and mother — of breast-milk over formula. But there’s also a real question about what we (i.e., individual families making choices, DHHS, employers, and society as a whole) ought to be doing in light of this information.
From the New York Times article:

Continue reading→

Is all animal research inhumane? (More from the vault)

Posted on by

This post, originally posted 8 January 2006 on the old site, responds to an email I got after the last post. Given John’s recent post on Pro-Test, the questions are still timely.
* * * * *
I received an email from a reader in response to my last post on PETA’s exposing of problems with the treatment of research animals at UNC. The reader pointed me to the website of an organization concerned with the treatment of lab animals in the Research Triangle, www.serat-nc.org. And, she wrote the following:

Some people may think that PETA is extreme. However, the true “extreme” is what happens to animals in labs. If the public knew, most would be outraged. But, of course our government hides such things very well. Those researchers who abuse animals in labs (which is ALL researchers, by my definition), cannot do an about turn and go home and not abuse animals or humans at their homes. Animal researchers are abusers, and there is enough research on people who abuse to know that abuse does not occur in isolation. The entire industry must change.

Continue reading→

Just because they’re out to get you doesn’t mean they don’t have a point. (One from the vault.)

Posted on by

Wrestling overgrown rose bushes out of the ground may be harder than wrestling gators. (At the very least, it seems to take longer, while provoking less sympathy).
Anyway, while I’m recovering from that, here’s a “classic” post from the old location. It was originally posted 5 January 2006, but the ethical issues are still fresh.
* * * * *
Since I’m in the blessed wee period between semesters, it’s time to revisit some “old news” (i.e., stuff that I had to set aside in the end-of-semester crush). Today, a story from about a month ago, wherein the Rick Weiss of the Washington Post reports on the University of North Carolina’s troubles obeying animal welfare regulations in its research labs.

Continue reading→

HPV vaccine approved; daughters’ future health as political football.

Posted on by

From USA Today:

The first vaccine to protect against most cervical cancer won federal approval Thursday.
The vaccine Gardasil, approved for use in girls and women ages 9 to 26, prevents infection by four strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, Merck & Co. Inc. said. The virus is the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease.
Gardasil protects against the two types of HPV responsible for about 70% of cervical cancer cases. The vaccine also blocks infection by two other strains responsible for 90% of genital wart cases.
Merck is expected to market Gardasil as a cancer, rather than an STD, vaccine. It remains unclear how widespread will be the use of the three-shot series, in part because of its estimated cost of $300 to $500. Conservative opposition to making the vaccine mandatory for school attendance may also curb its adoption.
The target age for receiving Gardasil is low because the vaccine works best when given to girls before they begin having sex and run the risk of HPV infection. The vaccine may not protect people already infected and may increase their risk of the kind of lesions that can lead to cervical cancer, the FDA has said.
The national Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will decide June 29 whether to endorse routine vaccination with Gardasil. That endorsement is critical if a vaccine is to become a standard of care.
It then will be up to individual states to decide whether to add the vaccine to the list of others required before students may attend public schools.

Continue reading→

Editorial cartoons that will ignite your Bunsen burners (not overturned cars).

Posted on by

There’s a lot going on in our world that might make you want to gnash your teeth. Some of that stuff, which you’ve heard about here before, involves the government trying to exert an influence over science — either in what research gets supported (and who makes that decision) or in how the results of research are reported (or not) — that maybe the government ought not to exert.
Sometimes detailed analyses of these skirmishes are what is called for. Other times, satire is the best delivery method for a stinging condemnation. Cartoonists, the Union of Concerned Scientists is tagging you in.

Continue reading→

NSF and “Senatorial Peer Review”: one blogger’s paranoid response.

Posted on by

Please notice that the title of this post promises a “paranoid response”, not a careful analysis. It’s one of those unscheduled features of this blog. Kind of like a snow day.
Yesterday’s Inside Higher Ed has an article about the U.S. Senate getting kind of testy with the director of the NSF about certain research projects the NSF has seen fit to fund. Regular readers know that I think we can have a reasoned debate about funding priorities (especially when that funding is put up by the public). It does not sound to me like the exchange in the Senate was that kind of reasoned debate.

Continue reading→