Sense about Science ? equipping people to make sense of science and evidence
ArchiveView full archive
- Axing Europe's top science job is a step backwards
- Evidence on drugs policy held back from the public debate
- Is red wine treatment for acne spot on?
- Who's asking for evidence?
- White noise and breast cancer risks
- Second-hand and chemical free
- Mumsnet & Ask for Evidence
- Context is crucial
- Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence: The importance of skepticism
- Who will take responsibility?
Posted by Tracey Brown on 18 November 2014
This is an article published in the New Scientist. You can read the full piece here.
So Jean-Claude Juncker, the new president of the European Commission, has scrapped the role of chief scientific adviser.
No one will now bring scientific scrutiny to the political decisions of the Commission, the body at the heart of European policy-making that affects half a billion citizens across 28 nations. The most senior European regulators and law-makers no longer have a link to the evidence base of the European research community.
What Juncker announced was the termination of the Bureau of European Policy Advisers, which provided the commission's president, commissioners and directors-general with strategic advice. The chief scientific adviser role was based within this body. The replacement body Juncker proposes – the European Political Strategy Centre – does not include a similar science post.
The chief scientific adviser, working with scant resources and a lack of clarity, has only ever been a single thread rather than the many ropes that were needed. But the creation of the role was a recognition by policy-makers that science and evidence are tools for making better, more accountable policies. It was an aspiration, one which followed a series of directives that made little sense and were full of unintended consequences.
Continue reading at New Scientist
Posted by Prateek Buch on 30 October 2014
Do tougher laws reduce drug use? An international comparison of the way different countries regulate drugs suggests not – but instead of this evidence informing the public debate over the last few months, the politics of drug policy has meant the findings were suppressed until today.
The Home Office conducted a study comparing drug laws in thirteen countries, concluding that “looking across different countries, there is no apparent correlation between the ‘toughness’ of a country’s approach and the prevalence of adult drug use.” But the report’s publication was delayed by months – because the report’s findings are inconvenient for politicians who claim that tough criminal sanctions work to reduce the harm from drugs.
It’s one thing for Ministers to decide that despite this evidence, they wish to keep the UK’s current drug laws in place. The official Home Office stance is that “Our drugs strategy is working and there is a long-term downward trend in drug misuse in the UK.”
It’s unacceptable, however, for the evidence itself to be suppressed or delayed – no matter what it concludes. As a minimum, policy should be informed by the best available evidence, and it would be just as unacceptable if supporters of decriminalisation had prevented a study that supported tough laws from being published. Doing so distorts an already ill-informed debate.
The suppression, delay and alteration of evidence that doesn’t suit political agendas is not new. In the last year alone we’ve seen reports on minimum alcohol pricing, food banks, immigration and fracking held back from public discussion for political reasons. Evidence Matters, our new campaign for accountable public policy, will investigate cases of government suppressing evidence as it calls for the effective and transparent use of evidence in public policy.
Posted by Volunteer on 15 October 2014
Guest post by Max Templer (@maxetempler), Sense About Science volunteer.
Resveratrol hit the headlines again last week with The Independent, The Business Standard and the Drinks Business – reporting the findings of a study on Acne treatment. Whilst the study's findings are potentially important for future treatments the headline 'Resveratrol may improve effectiveness of Acne Treatment' probably wasn't going to draw readers in. However, resveratrol is found in one particular item that almost guarantees some press coverage:
'Antioxidant in red wine could help reduce acne, study says' - The Independent
'Red Wine Could Hold Key To Acne Cure' - The Drinks Business
'Now, drink wine to hold back acne' - The Business Standard
As resveratrol is found in red wine (as well as chocolate and grapes) this quickly became the 'hook' for stories about the study. However, this framing was more than a little misleading. Having noticed The Independent's story I decided to investigate further and ask for evidence.
I contacted Yang Yu, one of the co-authors of the study, who filled in some crucial gaps which the stories had missed out. Like the fact that the studies didn’t look at red wine, chocolate or grapes – but in fact looked at applying resveratrol directly to the skin.
"Our study evaluated resveratrol in direct contact with Propionibacterium acnes. In order to find out if resveratrol can improve the skin of acne patients, there would need to be further studies in humans to validate our findings.
The resveratrol in wine is metabolized by the body before it gets to the skin. Thus, we do not know whether drinking wine would have the same effect as applying resveratrol topically."
In other words there is only evidence to suggest that resveratrol would work as part of a topical cream and, conversely, there is no evidence to suggest that ingesting it (eg drinking it in wine) would have a similar effect.
Upon finding this out I emailed all three publications to inform them of this. However, this is where things get a bit more complicated - and the onus seemed to fall more on the reader to critically engage with the piece.
As The Independent and Drinks Business only stated that resveratrol was found in red wine and did not state that drinking wine could prevent acne they had not published anything inaccurate. Whilst it might be reasonably assumed that many people would infer that drinking wine could help prevent acne - most people drink wine as opposed to applying it to their skin - this isn't really the news outlet's responsibility. Whilst The Independent acknowledged that people might infer this and amended its article, the Drinks Business disagreed with me about this and left its article as it was. The only outlet which published something explicitly inaccurate, The Business Standard, did not respond to my query and its article remains the same.
Posted by Chris Peters on 03 October 2014
What do the Women’s Institutes and the weightlifting podcast Iron Radio have in common?
They, along with Oxford Skeptics in the Pub and the South Harpenden Gardens and Allotments Society are just some of the groups that I’ve spoken with recently about our Ask for Evidence campaign. These are all groups whose members, listeners and supporters have got in touch to say they object to having the wool pulled over their eyes by misleading advertising and evidence-free policies. And people from all these organisations are doing something about it – they’re asking for evidence.
It’s important we have a diverse range of people supporting the campaign – and Ask for Evidence has uniquely eclectic mix, such as Mumsnet, the UK biggest parenting forum, the British Institute of Radiology, the consumer association Which? and the Vegan Society. All of them are putting their shoulders to the wheel to help challenge misleading information in politician’s speeches, newspaper articles, and beyond.
But we have to make a lasting change by putting science and evidence in the hands of the public. And for that we need even more people involved. There are plenty of ways you can help. Ask your organisation if it will support the campaign. As you can see I’m happy to come and explain exactly what that means. And if you’ve seen a claim that you’re not sure about, don’t just walk on by, take responsibility – ask for evidence.
Posted by Victoria Murphy on 02 October 2014
On 2nd October 2014, there was a double page spread in the Daily Mirror on “13 ways to cut your risk of breast cancer”. The article included insights from medical research charities and breast cancer experts. They gave evidence-based advice, like exercising regularly. But alongside them and given equal weight were unfounded claims, including comments from a nutrition coach with no medical training about avoiding plastic bottles. And the article included the contradictory statement that there is not clear evidence for the danger of plastic, but to avoid it anyway, which is really unhelpful.
When presented with so many claims, it can be confusing and stressful. And it has real consequences when the useful health advice is lost in the white noise.
The simple question many people have is “Should I be worried?” We know that worry over breast cancer risks causes anxiety and stress. This list of 13 risks just adds to it. It even tells you to “de-stress”! What we need is help navigating these claims – see our guides about understanding evidence, and Ask for Evidence.