Every day, we are flooded with information telling us how to achieve a healthy, happy lifestyle, yet very rarely does this information conclusively agree. Learning how to sort through this sea of opinions to find what really works represents one of the larger challenges we face today. Photo credit: Alvin Balemesa
I woke up late this morning.
Without time for my usual hundred thousand-calorie breakfast - a smorgasbord of eggs, potatoes, meats, and avocado which seems largely unnecessary but is, nonetheless, the best part of my day - I opted for a protein bar, clandestinely taken from my roommate’s snack drawer. As I inhaled the snack, I couldn’t help but notice that on the label in large, iridescent letters was written: “contains one billion probiotics.” This made me smile.
Fast forward 20 minutes and I’m sitting at my desk at work, finishing up a little bit of internet browsing. As a microbiologist reading that label, I was curious as to what the public actually thought that phrase – “contains one billion probiotics” – really means. It turns out, people have a lot of different feelings about probiotics. The internet is bustling with claims about probiotics and their uses: ranging from the reasonable (“improves gut health”) to the miraculous (“cured my husband’s cancer”). One of my favorite descriptions of probiotics in my short-but-enlightening internet search was found on a popular health blog, and sounded something like this:
“Probiotics are beneficial to human health because they produce compounds like H2O2 in your gut, which target and kill harmful bacteria and promote the health of heterotrophic bacteria.”
What’s interesting about this statement is not necessarily the fact that it is entirely untrue (and it is, indeed, almost entirely untrue), but instead the ease with which people who do not understand scientific concepts use them to craft their stories. The use of science-y terms like “H2O2” (also known as hydrogen peroxide) and heterotrophic (meaning “does not make its own food”) are completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but for someone without a decent background in biochemistry or gut microbiology, they sound scientifically backed. Interestingly, the same people who use these scientific terms incorrectly are also often quick to discredit actually scientifically-supported arguments. The comments section of the article was full of praise and gratitude for the author’s insights into this supplement - some even said this brand of probiotics had changed their lives.
Photo credit: Daily Nouri
Oral probiotic supplements now constitute a $50 billion industry, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence demonstrating they have little-to-no effect on already healthy human subjects. Marketing campaigns have done an excellent job crafting a narrative of the health benefits of probiotic supplements for the human gut, which has in turn been enhanced by bloggers and health enthusiasts who often use completely arbitrary, science-y, and misleading terms to support their claims.
“Countering evidence-based science with speculation-based opinions undermines the scientific process at a fundamental level, encouraging people to believe that science is just another set of beliefs with only as much weight as the voice speaking them.”
But probiotics aren’t what I want to talk about in this article (if you are now insatiably hungry for more info on the topic, see this one). Instead, I’d like to highlight one of the biggest barriers to scientific communication today: both the use and acceptance of misinformation, of which the Probiotics Debacle is a great example. We live in a time in which information is pervasive and the answers to our questions can be found at the click of a button. The only problem with this? Not all information accurately represents the truth. In fact, most information probably doesn’t. Most of us are intimately familiar with this in some way or another, whether that be through warring news channels, gossip in the workplace, or eye-catching falsehoods on a protein bar wrapper.
But it is especially true in science.
Photo credit: Johannes Plenio
Science, in its purest form, is a tool. It’s a set of rules we use to learn about the world around us. And there’s a degree of uncertainty to it: it’s called the theory of evolution for a reason, because even though there is overwhelming evidence that suggests it’s legitimate, the rules of science tell us that evidence should guide us to our conclusions, and new evidence is always rolling in. Uncertainty is something that all scientists are accustomed to. But for most people, uncertainty is uncomfortable.
Take, for example, the argument that vaccines cause autism. In 1998, a study by Andrew Wakefield in The Lancet ignited a worldwide panic by claiming to have found a relationship between the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine and childhood autism. Shortly after, the study, which did not follow the rigorous method expected from scientific papers and was later proven to be false, was retracted from the journal, and Wakefield lost his medical license. The “uncertainty” that resulted from this tiny moment of controversy within the scientific community rightfully confused the public, and seared Wakefield’s claims into the minds of the global populace.
Science is a tool to test correlations, and the answers it provides help us address our problems more capably and more safely. Photo credit: Science in HD
In the holes where scientific uncertainty creates doubt, people are quick to insert their opinions, leading to the myths and falsehoods that are broadcast as pseudoscience today. Wakefield’s legacy still lives on.
It is true that the number of autism cases has risen in recent years. However, this could be due to an infinite number of factors: shifts in the American diet, the advent of handheld technology, or even just a growing population. Most likely, it’s because we have broadened our ability to diagnose autism spectrum disorders and increased awareness about their commonness in society. Making correlations between things that may not be related at all is dangerous, which is why science exists: to test these ideas and determine if there is a causation. Yet, despite countless studies demonstrating the beneficial effects of vaccines on human health, the opinions of a stubborn few are still driving the decisions of many US citizens, posing a serious threat to the health of our people. Honestly, proposing correlations isn’t a bad thing: science exists to test ideas. But ignoring the results that science provides is where things get dicey.
Unfortunately, when science comes head to head with myths like these, it just comes across to most people as a war of opinions. Countering evidence-based science with speculation-based opinions undermines the scientific process at a fundamental level, encouraging people to believe that science is just another set of beliefs with only as much weight as the voice speaking them. Sadly, the fight against pseudoscience has decreased peoples’ trust in the scientific process. Now, for every scientific myth, hundreds of studies and unimaginable funds are needed to convince the public of something that the evidence unquestionably points to. Media can be science’s worst enemy, providing an outlet for the rapid and uncontrolled spread of pseudoscience.
Photo credit: Matthew Guay
“We need mediators. Scientific journalists. Artists. Cartoonists. Filmmakers. Comedians. Photographers. Passionate people to dispel the myths, to break down the science.”
In truth, most individuals aren’t at fault for using and accepting misinformation. It can be incredibly challenging trying to parse through all the false information out there to get an accurate picture of how the world works. Parents trying to ensure the health and recovery of their children should have an evidence-based (and not anecdotal) perspective of how medicines, nutrition, and various lifestyle choices will improve the health of their loved ones. Those who want to become more environmentally conscious need reliable information on which steps they can take to reduce their carbon footprint, and which just won’t make much of a difference. Citizens voting in the election in November should have an unbiased, reliable source of data to better understand the biggest problems facing our country (and our world), and use that information to vote for a president that they feel addresses these problems best.
Photo credit: Gabriele Garanzelli
Even for scientists, it is difficult nowadays to find accurate information about topics outside our specialty fields. Scientific papers are almost always a good source, but they’re dense, full of jargon, and often require prior knowledge to actually understand them. If I’m curious about how black holes work and I attempt to read an astrophysicist’s paper on gravity-induced light curvature, I’m going to understand about .01% of it.
We need reliable sources to get accessible, accurate scientific information. We probably need people with scientific training to do this; scientific translators, if you will. More and more people are graduating with scientific degrees every year, yet jobs are getting scarcer - this is a good time for us as a society to focus our efforts on employing people in scientific communication fields. While I am a firm believer that all scientists should be able to convey their work in understandable ways, if we are going to break down ever-growing barriers between science and the general public, we need mediators too. Scientific journalists. Artists. Cartoonists. Filmmakers. Comedians. Photographers. Passionate people to dispel the myths, to break down the science, and to give people the chance to participate in scientific discovery and innovation. Just as it can be an enemy, media can also be an ally.
Scientific discoveries make our society happier and healthier. They are something to respect, to validate, and to understand so you can make informed decisions. But we, as scientists, have to step up and do a better job of getting that information to anyone and everyone. Here at PassioInventa, we hope to provide a trustworthy environment where we can decode some of these discoveries and discuss their implications. If you have any questions, we’re more than happy to answer them the best we can.
As for what you can do: question everything. Take things you hear and read with a grain of salt and, if you have questions, don’t hesitate to ask an expert. Be careful not to perpetuate the spread of misinformation. If you’re advising people on health, lifestyle, environmental or other issues, do your research first. In the meantime, here are some good places to find reliable information:
Twitter: One of the best ways to stay scientifically informed nowadays is through Twitter. Many scientists are using this platform to communicate their findings, and the size limitations of a tweet make it a perfect place to find short, clear explanations for why these discoveries are important. Try searching the #scicomm hashtag, following some enthusiastic scientists, making sure the discoveries you see are supported by scientific literature, and seeing what you find.
Scientific American, Wired, National Geographic, and Quanta Magazine
BBC Earth, for the nature fans
Scientific journals (Nature, Science) for those that want information directly from the source
And, importantly, your friends here at PassioInventa. Get your flu vaccine, and happy searching.
-Jason
Photo credit: Faye Cornish