Resarchers are busy saving us from ourselves (and out wallets)
by ALEX LEKAS, Up & Coming Weekly, June 8 - 14, 2005 June 08, 2005
The headline practically jumped off the page, its conclusion so seemingly obvious the reader was left wondering how this even qualified as news: "Scientists advocate sunshine."
However, before you pencil this as an early front-runner for the next Masters of the Obvious Award, consider that the American Academy of Dermatology immediately blasted the findings, saying any advice that you get some sun is "irresponsible."
Then, there is this from Science magazine: twin studies that, in essence, say cleaner air is a bad thing. Here's why: with fewer pollutants floating around, more sunshine reaches ground, compounding the problems caused by - what else? - global warming. So first man is wrong for causing the problem; then, he's wrong again for coming up with ways of fixing it. Hmmmm.
Some folks might call this a case of wanting it both ways. And, if the scientific community can't agree, what are the rest of us to do? Frankly, a bit more skepticism when reading about research projects would be a good start, but that commodity is in short supply. For instance, consider our good buddy global warming. A recent editorial in The Fayetteville Observer opined: "Global warming is a real phenomenon, one of the greatest environmental challenges we face, if not the greatest. And humans are primarily responsible. What are you doing about that?"
What, indeed, particularly in Fayetteville, which is on a federal watch list for air quality. The Observer editorial cited auto emissions as a clear and present danger to human health, and there have been a lot of suggestions made about how you can help by changing some of your driving habits. But, if the public does what is being asked and Fayetteville's air is shown to be pristine, how does that square with the study in Science, the one linking clean air with a worsening of the so-called greenhouse effect?
It might help if the scientific community kept its story straight. From the pages of Newsweek came this startling discovery: "There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."
Chilling stuff. Literally. The April 1975 article was about ... global cooling. That's right; the fear was of the next Ice Age. To sum it up, in a 30-year time span, we are supposed to believe that the Earth has gone from being on the verge of a deep freeze to approaching a meltdown, and in each instance, it is man's fault. There is simply no way.
Research studies, of course, are not limited to environmental doom. Just look at the confusion over what you should eat. High-protein. Low carbs. Eat red meat. Don't eat red meat. Milk is good for you. Dairy will kill you. Carbs provide energy. Carbs make you fat. Lots of studies, lots of experts, and each with a different conclusion that they will be glad to share with you if you'll just send cash, check, or money order. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to believe that the people behind the studies actually know what they're talking about and aren't driven by personal or professional agendas?
-snip-
I really do like the final paragraph, it really sums it up:
"Makes you wonder how a generation that rode bikes without helmets, drank whole milk, ate fried foods, and used diving boards managed to survive without the research fairies saving us from ourselves. "
by ALEX LEKAS, Up & Coming Weekly, June 8 - 14, 2005 June 08, 2005
The headline practically jumped off the page, its conclusion so seemingly obvious the reader was left wondering how this even qualified as news: "Scientists advocate sunshine."
However, before you pencil this as an early front-runner for the next Masters of the Obvious Award, consider that the American Academy of Dermatology immediately blasted the findings, saying any advice that you get some sun is "irresponsible."
Then, there is this from Science magazine: twin studies that, in essence, say cleaner air is a bad thing. Here's why: with fewer pollutants floating around, more sunshine reaches ground, compounding the problems caused by - what else? - global warming. So first man is wrong for causing the problem; then, he's wrong again for coming up with ways of fixing it. Hmmmm.
Some folks might call this a case of wanting it both ways. And, if the scientific community can't agree, what are the rest of us to do? Frankly, a bit more skepticism when reading about research projects would be a good start, but that commodity is in short supply. For instance, consider our good buddy global warming. A recent editorial in The Fayetteville Observer opined: "Global warming is a real phenomenon, one of the greatest environmental challenges we face, if not the greatest. And humans are primarily responsible. What are you doing about that?"
What, indeed, particularly in Fayetteville, which is on a federal watch list for air quality. The Observer editorial cited auto emissions as a clear and present danger to human health, and there have been a lot of suggestions made about how you can help by changing some of your driving habits. But, if the public does what is being asked and Fayetteville's air is shown to be pristine, how does that square with the study in Science, the one linking clean air with a worsening of the so-called greenhouse effect?
It might help if the scientific community kept its story straight. From the pages of Newsweek came this startling discovery: "There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."
Chilling stuff. Literally. The April 1975 article was about ... global cooling. That's right; the fear was of the next Ice Age. To sum it up, in a 30-year time span, we are supposed to believe that the Earth has gone from being on the verge of a deep freeze to approaching a meltdown, and in each instance, it is man's fault. There is simply no way.
Research studies, of course, are not limited to environmental doom. Just look at the confusion over what you should eat. High-protein. Low carbs. Eat red meat. Don't eat red meat. Milk is good for you. Dairy will kill you. Carbs provide energy. Carbs make you fat. Lots of studies, lots of experts, and each with a different conclusion that they will be glad to share with you if you'll just send cash, check, or money order. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to believe that the people behind the studies actually know what they're talking about and aren't driven by personal or professional agendas?
-snip-
I really do like the final paragraph, it really sums it up:
"Makes you wonder how a generation that rode bikes without helmets, drank whole milk, ate fried foods, and used diving boards managed to survive without the research fairies saving us from ourselves. "
Comments