Live data from Hacker News

Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

arstechnica.com

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#11

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories. Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?

> scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer

While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. If they have to layer narratives on top of their work to get people to care, I don't see any harm in that as long as it doesn't stray outside of the lines of fact.

A problem I've seen myself is that the original scientists aren't always the ones marketing their work. There's someone else (a layperson) at the university paid to do that, and they will often make claims that aren't substantiated by the original research.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#12
post #7

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

Social science is quite bad. Reporters on, KQED for example, will cite a single study to bolster their opinion on something. It'll go along the lines of, "UC Davis ran a study which concluded giving money directly to the homeless with no strings attached had the best results". But they won't say how many people were involved, what other studies this was compared to, how it was conducted, were there studies with oppos…

My favorite is when there is a legitimate controversy in the field, and outsiders cherry pick which side to listen to. Person A references a study that just so happens to support his existing opinion. Person B searches and finds a study that contradicts it. Person A finds some criticism of that study and claims it's been "debunked". And so on, back and forth.

You end up with 2 sides that believe their opinions have been absolutely confirmed by science, and have impressive sounding statistics and studies to reference. When in reality the facts are still uncertain and there is no consensus.

IIRC something like this happened with minimum wage debates. With some studies showing the effect of a higher minimum wage was positive, and others showing it was negative. Almost any political issue will have some of this.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#13

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

> I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

Who do you read, and have you seen this?

https://github.com/j2kun/blogs-by-experts

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#14
post #13

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

> I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media. Who do you read, and have you seen this? https://github.com/j2kun/blogs-by-experts

Too many to list easily, but I've found over time that I read fewer and fewer professional pundits, opiners, and journalists.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#15

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories. Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?

> Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?

What a weird selection criterion. It rejects all the professional scientists, by your description.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#16

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories. Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?

Good point. I thought about this a bit more and, to be honest, I read very few academics. Not intentionally, but it worked out that way.

Strangely, some of the smarter, best informed people I read are just regular people without any journalistic or academic qualifications in the field they write on.

On second thought, maybe that's not as strange as it seems.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#17

Doesn't greater alcohol consumption correlate with tobacco use and other adverse behaviors? It think they're making quite a stretch to say that the cause is the alcohol.

I think you should look at the background papers before making such a bold and unwarranted dismissal. Any researcher worth their salt will make sure to at least try to exclude other factors, and any good peer reviewer and journal editor will point out if this is missing. So if papers consistently find this link chances are very good it's there.

Actually, this might be an example of the "healthy user" bias in observational studies.[1] Although epidemiologists do try hard to include all of the relevant variables in their analyses, there are likely unidentified individual differences (perhaps including personality and lifestyle) that distinguish people with better health outcomes.

That's why double-blind, randomized, controlled trials provide more compelling evidence of cause and effect.

[1] Do we really know what makes us healthy? NY Times Magazine, Sept. 16, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t....

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories. Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?

Good point. I thought about this a bit more and, to be honest, I read very few academics. Not intentionally, but it worked out that way. Strangely, some of the smarter, best informed people I read are just regular people without any journalistic or academic qualifications in the field they write on. On second thought, maybe that's not as strange as it seems.

It's important to understand that practicing researchers are targeting each other as the audience, and not laypeople. It's simply not the scientist's job to inform or entertain you when they work in that mode. Some choose to do popular writing as well - Carl Sagan is a very successful example. But not all, and that's OK.

Most excellent scientists are busy doing useful things other than popular blogs and magazine articles. Same for judges, doctors, engineers and other busy, specialized professionals.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#19
> While these errors may appear minor to some, confusing an opinion piece with research is likely to seem disturbing, if not egregious, to those in the scientific community.

This is far from a new problem, and this particular piece is far from egregious, relatively speaking, considering how bad public science reporting is in general in the mass media.

John Oliver had fun with it recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#20
post #8

What I find interesting (perhaps confusing is the better word for me) is that the other article from a few days ago that proclaimed drinking leads to cancer didn't mention that the moderate drinkers have fewer risk factors than the control group of abstainers. (The OP article does indicate the result, however.) So what is it? Is moderate drinking helping? Or is it the lifestyle of moderation helping? From the Nationa…

I think it's unclear that the amount of resveratrol found in a few glasses of red wine is truly therapeutic.

Also, it's possible to get resveratrol from red grapes and peanuts in amounts roughly comparable to that found in red wine.

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/dietary-factors/phytochemical...

Post reply on HN