How do you know which health research claims to trust?

Thanks for this Convo, Chris. I suggest that anyone who is interested in looking at scientific literature should start by looking at scientific reviews in peer reviewed journals rather than individual research papers. The authors of a good review should have looked at the most important papers, summarising the state of knowledge and where uncertainties remain. The authors should have explored the evidence for different theories or hypotheses. Not all reviews are published in open access journals, unfortunately.

One of my main concerns is misuse of science. One way in which this is done is to choose only those research papers that support an argument, conveniently disregarding others. This bias may be difficult for the non-specialist to spot.

I agree with wavechange’s reservations. Any scientific papers I believe need a real understanding of the topic for their significance, impartiality, validity to be properly understood and critically assessed . We used at least two experts to vet submitted papers and even from eminent authors the work often raised questions. There is pressure to get work published particularly from academic institutions; not every topic and theory researched will provide the hoped for advance.

Self diagnosis in medical matters is, I think, particularly worrying; you see this when people trawl the internet and worry themselves about what they find. Used sensibly it can give appropriate questions to ask your doctor or consultant, but you sometimes see it arouses mild irritation.

Important medical issues should be properly vetted by a panel of real experts. The “press” does not have this capability; they prefer to hype something up for impact, not to objectively inform the public. I’d be very wary of lay people’s interpretations of specialist work.

Critical thinking is a faculty that usually requires teaching. I would argue that anyone with a Science, Engineering or Technology background at University will certainly possess it, and just about anyone with a higher degree will, in some part. But we’re re-treading old ground, here. The problem is not the research per se, although a worryingly large amount is both commissioned and subsequently embargoed by the big pharmaceutical companies, it is the near Scientific illiteracy of the average journalist, whose ability to distinguish between probability and magic seems utterly unattainable.

Research consensus and Peer reviewing are the two touchstones for validation of any research, yet all too often these same illiterate hacks grab a sentence they can barely comprehend and publish it as a confirmed fact, and often as a headline. Comics like the DFM usually just make it up, anyway, so what’s the answer? Is misinformation more dangerous than no information?

This is tricky, because the nature of high level research is poorly understood, often, sadly, by the researchers themselves, so even Plain English summaries are likely to be confusing or – worse – inaccurate. People want simple, straightforward guidelines, not reams of carefully qualified statistical results. If I want a new ‘Fridge, I don’t look for the papers the designers worked on to create the perfect chiller: I go to Which? and find the best buy and trust their research and testing has been thorough.

In health terms that’s what everyone wants, but there’s a problem: never has the truism ‘One size doesn’t fit all’ been more applicable than in the case of human health. Simply put, we’re complicated and different. Our sexual reproductive methodology ensures that, and although doting aunts might like to believe little Freddie has his mother’s eyes, they’re just as likely to be those of a Denisovan, or Neanderthal. albeit a few generations back (although, to be fair, in the case of the Neanderthal there’s a growing body of evidence that suggests their descendants still live on, a fact which attendance at any Premier league game would seem to confirm).

Neither can we trust the Government, itself riddled Scientific illiterates and if not, ‘yes’ men, who don’t wish to displease their political masters, and whose guidelines regarding fruit and veg intake were seemingly plucked out of thin air. So what’s the answer?

We managed to stop a lot of folk dying from cancers through the smoking ban. I never thought it would happen, but happen it did, but on that occasion everyone in the scientific world was speaking with a single voice. So if we can achieve it with a known carcinogen could we achieve it with foods? Perhaps – once we understand exactly how different foods affect us, but we’re a very long way from that. When the makers of some of the most important drugs don’t fully understand their mechanisms, only their consequences, and while research generally continues to be beholden to vested interests as much as it currently is, I seriously doubt any amount of plain English will save the day.

Dollop of Bovine extract saturated butterfat in your coffee, sir?

If ever there was an example of badly (actually fraudulently) done research it’s the paper by Andrew Wakefield on the effects of the MMR vaccination. He was exposed, eventually, by the efforts of a doggedly determined journalist – Brian Deare – but not before incalculable damage had been done. In that case even the big TV companies were effectively complicit in spreading the lies, but how would they know his work was fraudulent?

Although he was struck off and banned from medicine in the UK he’s now in the ever-gullible USA spreading his disinformation to a much less discerning market.

If the research is published by someone that is trying to sell you something then be wary.

According to the Medical Daily ( quoting the Journal of the National Cancer Institute ) young people have a lot in common with those born in 1890,s in relation to colon/rectal cancer . It has doubled in two decades – studies of half a Million people between 1974 and 2013 /born around 1990 show double for colon cancer and quadruple for rectal cancer . Stop eating chemical food /fast food .