Thanks for another stimulating article, Richard. Your advice for scientists about being skeptical enough to investigate claims from scientists is great, but I think journalists and general readers need a bit of coaching too.
I suggest that when a scientist or official makes a claim without any references to studies supporting it, ask for the evidence. If evidence is offered, continue in detective mode and investigate the credibility of the body of evidence, including the dates of the studies, who funded them, and how well, if at all, study results support conclusions. Consider what is included and what is excluded, as well as who benefits and who is harmed from the perspective of the authors. Of course, just because a study was peer-reviewed does not ensure its credibility or generalizability to a new scenario.
At your recommendation, Richard, I've started reading the book "Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health" by Marty Makary M.D. The connection for me is the common claim that raw milk is "inherently dangerous", a risk perception that is not based on current scientific evidence or dairy management practices or the extensive body of evidence for benefits and risks of the milk microbiota. Scientists and public health officials promoting this risk perception have a blind spot, and evidence rarely seems to matter regarding their entrenched pro-pasteurization beliefs or feelings.
I look forward to learning more about our blind spots that undermine health and wellness in this country and what might be undertaken to build trust in science and scientists.
Thanks for another stimulating article, Richard. Your advice for scientists about being skeptical enough to investigate claims from scientists is great, but I think journalists and general readers need a bit of coaching too.
I suggest that when a scientist or official makes a claim without any references to studies supporting it, ask for the evidence. If evidence is offered, continue in detective mode and investigate the credibility of the body of evidence, including the dates of the studies, who funded them, and how well, if at all, study results support conclusions. Consider what is included and what is excluded, as well as who benefits and who is harmed from the perspective of the authors. Of course, just because a study was peer-reviewed does not ensure its credibility or generalizability to a new scenario.
At your recommendation, Richard, I've started reading the book "Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health" by Marty Makary M.D. The connection for me is the common claim that raw milk is "inherently dangerous", a risk perception that is not based on current scientific evidence or dairy management practices or the extensive body of evidence for benefits and risks of the milk microbiota. Scientists and public health officials promoting this risk perception have a blind spot, and evidence rarely seems to matter regarding their entrenched pro-pasteurization beliefs or feelings.
I look forward to learning more about our blind spots that undermine health and wellness in this country and what might be undertaken to build trust in science and scientists.