Coffee News (and Another Example of Bad Science Reporting)
First comes the spiffy headline via the BBC: Regular coffee drinkers have ‘cleaner’ arteries
Hooray! he thought, between sips of strong, black Colombian…
But then, actually reading the article:
Drinking a few cups of coffee a day may help people avoid clogged arteries – a known risk factor for heart disease – Korean researchers believe.
“May”? “Believe”? That’s not what the headline said!
Some studies have linked consumption to heart risk factors, such as raised cholesterol or blood pressure, while others suggest the beverage may offer some heart protection.
But there is no conclusive evidence either way, and the latest research from South Korea, which is published in the journal Heart, only adds to the discussion.
[…]
Victoria Taylor of the British Heart Foundation said: "While this study does highlight a potential link between coffee consumption and lower risk of developing clogged arteries, more research is needed to confirm these findings and understand what the reason is for the association.
No conclusive evidence? The discussion is added to? A potential link?
Sometimes I think that the biggest problem facing the world of information sharing is headline writers.
Reminds me of this cartoon:
Fortunately, I stopped giving any credence to any “scientific” articles about food and drink and climate change and the big bang theory and talking fish and, oh, heck, I’ve stopped believing scientists altogether. I eat, drink and smoke whatever and whenever I want.
All scientific discovery stories should be ignored for five years.
@Richard J. Medicus:
Yeah, that’s similar to how I hate American Idol, so I stopped listening to music.
STOP THE PRESSES!!! EDITORS SACRIFICE ACCURACY FOR SAKE OF CATCHY HEADLINES!!! Just like they do with every other story that crosses their desks.
@Richard J. Medicus: Seems to me it’s reporters you should be doubting, not scientists.
Aren’t we now required to drink coffee? Or did I misinterpret the latest article (blog comment, tweet)?
Hey, if the article was linked here in the (paid) “more articles and offers” section, the headline would have been YOU’LL NEVER BELIEVE HOW THIS BEVERAGE CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE!!!!
So maybe print headline writers not the worst out there…
BTW, Phd comic is a must read for anyone who’s been there.
@Mikey:
Unfortunately, it’s not just the reporters these days. Certain fields — nutrition, medicine, and epidemiology, I’m looking at you — have chronic issues with competence and methodological standards. The mismatch between “what is good science” and “what will get you published” is large, and good science isn’t the one that leads to tenure. Studies on the reproducibility of reportedly statistically significant “links” in these fields find that the majority (!) are not reproducible.
Other fields do much better, but there’s still no substitute for learning statistics and reading the original paper for yourself.
From Dr. Taylor’s item above.
That this is a disparagement of the state of reporting in the scientific arena is pretty clear.
Wouldn’t a more accurate approach be to state that A may or may not cause B?
Can we criticize the realm of political journalism in a similar manner?
From the linked NYT article.
Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules
Also from NYT.
How far down the ladder does this apply? I wonder if we can find out how many Federal Govt. employees are currently scrambling to establish .gov eMail accounts.
Journalism could regain some of it’s lost credibility if the speculative were curtailed. Words like “may” and “possibly” clearly are speculative and literally announce that investigation is not complete.
I love with the chart with one exception: somewhere around “the Internets” we need to have a large corporate building pictured with a boardroom of folks figuring out how to make money (or protect themselves) from the new “facts”.