Blog

As I was writing this post about smoking cessation and exercise for The Metro Spirit, I felt kind of cheap. The reason: I was extolling the benefits of a study “recently released.” I usually have a big problem with media reports of new studies. We know there is a problem with science literacy, and media reports often have mis-representations of the signifigance or implications of new research.

A quick search found an example of a media report entitled,

This report detailed the observation of only 32 out of the thousands of individuals who have weight loss surgery. There was no risk:benefit analyisis and the researcher even refused to comment on how common the occurence of this issue is among people treated for weight loss with surgery. The research seemed solid, but the fright-factor of the headline seems out of place.

I have decided, therefore, to pay more attention to the type of evidence I’m writing about. Type of evidence you say?

Levels of Evidence

Scientific research/evidence is broken down into levels.
Or here.

At the bottom is case reports, which are simple observations recorded objectively. Further up, there are Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), which are good prospective studies where one can begin to imply causality. At the top are Systematic Reviews (SR), where statistical researchers sort through only the best RCTs and hold them to high standards. The conclusions of a SR can be held in very high regard.

For what its worth, and your still reading this, the study about smoking I mentioned above was a Systematic Review. I just want everyone to know that as I do my part to advance science literacy…(and release my inner nerd energy.)

I will hereby vow from now on, to report the level of evidence in articles I’m citing when appropriate. I’ll simply tell you Good, Fair, or Less Than Solid.

Labels: Metro Spirit, Research, Science Literacy

Today’s New York Times had a great article on the Japanese “tradition” of whaling. I decided to post this as a follow-up to my previous whaling post.

My favorite quote from the article:

This is a well written piece that offers some great perspective and information on the subject. It’s helped me to understand why Japan is so insistent on the issue. I couldn’t beleive it when the article explained how the U.S. actually introduced this “tradition” to Japan!

Apparently whale meat is “strong smelling” and they need to stew it in ketchup to mask its flavor. The thing that still bothers me: Tradition or not, there is a reluctance by those favoring whaling to acknowledge these animals as highly evolved mammals, that fall a little too close to us on the evolutionary chain. Should we really eat them?

Whales, Dophins, Elephants, Gorillas, Oh my!

Labels: current press, environment

I guess I find it odd that no one looked for this before now, but some food chemists finally decided to stop assuming that fiber is only consumed via plants, and checked out my cup of coffee for fiber. They found it!

Labels: coffee

In a news release today, the American Physical Therapy Association reported that its Board of Directors had voted to create a grant program to help state chapters market the profession.

Labels: APTA, physical therapy

Labels: physical therapy

In earlier posts I have mentioned some instances where scientists have felt “limited” in their ability to speak freely about climate change. Today, a report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer outlines another such instance. Scientists from the Fish and Wildlife Service were told on two separate occasions not to discuss the effect climate change has on polar bears. This, in reference to their upcoming meetings in Norway and Russia about polar bears. A third memo says the policy will apply for trips to those two nations as well as Canada and “any northern country.”

Labels: current press, environment

Labels: current press, misc.

Labels: current press, physical therapy, sports

The New York Times Magazine had a piece right up my alley. Darwin’s God.

I like to read and participate in debates that include both spirituality and science. I really like evolution. This is a really good read, but make some coffee, its a little long!

Bonus Points for anyone who can leave a comment that can answer these two questions about the late evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould:

1. What was his favorite sport?
2. What is the name of his Theory of Evolution? (Important as we now consider that theory and not Darwin’s to be how things really work.)

Labels: evolution, misc.

Today’s New York Times had this article about Eliot Spitzer:

Health Care Lobby Is Served Bagels and a Scolding From the Governor – New York Times

The low-down for non-readers: The governor called out 2 leaders of very powerful health care lobbies in New York, unexpectedly, during a conference at which he was speaking. The leaders who were in attendance, were “stunned” as the governor served up a slide with their logos entitled, “Guardians of the Status Quo.”

These two companies are largely credited with running ads responsible for driving down Pataki’s approval ratings before he left office when he attempted reform of the medical system. Now, here they are running even more personally attacking ads to suggest Spitzer is no good. “I don’t understand why Gov. Spitzer is attacking me and my hospital,” proclaims one of the ads. Perhaps the nurses in these ads could take up that question with one of the doctors who work there, or better yet, one of the CEOs of these non-profit facilities making over $20 million a year!

These unions/lobbies exist to preserve large amounts of spending in the health sector and have no interest in reform of the system. The NYT article has some pretty staggering stats about how much cash these lobbies have hold of.

Kudos, Eliot Spitzer, for a bold move. You’re growing on me.

Labels: current press, health policy