DEAR READERS: You may have noted an increased number of self-proclaimed "experts" making dubious diet and health claims lately. These tend to come from those who eschew any obligation to be evidence-based, and their pronouncements often spread like weeds on social media. This is not what you want when looking for objective, reliable explanations for serious health issues; it is particularly dangerous during a pandemic's added stresses and complexities.
Advertisement
It helps to understand that scientific research is a complex cuisine, with the principal investigator serving as the equivalent of an executive chef. Unlike preparing an evening meal, research is a process that takes years to plan, conduct and analyze before any results are ready for consumption. Funding is pivotal; it governs what gets done, who will be available to do the work and, in the end, how the "serving" of science gets digested by the public.
Scientists at research institutions rely on grants from federal and private sources to keep their laboratories in operation. Competition for limited funds continues to increase, and the situation shows no improvement. Grant applications are reviewed by scientists selected for this purpose; the agencies distribute their funds according to priority scores assigned during evaluation. Many turn to industries and grant-giving foundations for their funding. This can mean looking at an issue from a different perspective: usually, one of interest to the organization writing the check. For many scientists, grant-writing takes up a big chunk of time. Some take courses on how to write better grants. Others form collaborations with scientists who have a better funding track record.
This reality behind scientific research is rarely understood or appreciated, and it helps explain what might come across as the conservative nature of mainstream science. How can one justify pursuing ideas on the fringes of science when such pursuits have a lower likelihood of funding? Consider, also, that challenges to mainstream thinking may place an individual at odds with the senior faculty members who will preside over their academic tenure (aka secure employment) decisions.
Even if initial research dollars are received, tackling new concepts can yield unclear results in the opening experiments. This can limit publishable results and affect the chances of a grant renewal. Scientists often opt to conduct smaller pilot experiments to help them design a better study; these can produce results more rapidly, while letting them know whether their theories make sense. Positive pilot study results can affirm theories, help with experimental design and increase the odds of future funding.
The message here: Don't assume that any questionable theories you hear have been put through the controls and constraints of the scientific process. To be our own best advocates, we each must ensure that the people providing advice are the real deal. If they're passing themselves off as experts, look into their training and education; find their peer-reviewed publication record; research who they work for. What are their accomplishments, outside of promoting a particular take for an organization or selling products claiming to provide a needed fix?
Stay away from those without appropriate academic and clinical training in the sciences. Simply because an individual claims mastery over their own experience with a health issue does not make them an expert for others facing the same challenge. If they present new concepts, be sure they provide support from objective, independent, science-reliable (preferably academic) sources.
Send questions to: "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.