[recycled material - first appeared here]

An issue I frequently harp on is that of language use. While precision with instruments is essential to good measurement, precision with language is crucial to defining variables, crafting hypotheses, and developing theories. Unfortunately, when it comes to educating the public about scientific findings, many writers "sexy" things up by playing fast and loose with words. Other times the problem may consist of a lack of good words to describe the phenomena in question.

When a writer lacks a good, tight-fitting word, he or she doesn't just leave a void in the sentence. They work with what they've got. "Sorry, we don't have this word in a size 9, we'll have to go with an 11 and add some fill." The more responsible and scientific thing to then do is to "add some fill," to explain how the word doesn't quite fit, and in doing so, outlining and better filling the void.

Case in point -- an article from ScienceDaily bearing this title: Scientists Show Bacteria Can 'Learn' And Plan Ahead.

Okay, we've got half-quotes around learn. So the bacteria don't learn as we customarily think of learning. What about plan ahead? Can bacterial truly do that as we do? Or is more explanation needed?

In the article we find many loose-fitting words in need of further explanation.

Bacteria can anticipate a future event and prepare for it, according to new research at the Weizmann Institute of Science.

How do they anticipate? What do they do to prepare? Explanatory paragraphs further confuse as much as they clarify:

Their findings show that these microorganisms' genetic networks are hard-wired to 'foresee' what comes next in the sequence of events and begin responding to the new state of affairs before its onset.

Foresee? Respond?

the scientists found that when the wine yeast feel the heat, they begin activating genes for dealing with the stresses of the next stage.

Feel? Activating?

After reading the article more closely a second time, I have a better understanding of the research, and the meaning of the words used to describe it. I may be wrong, for this is not my area of specialty, but the underlying science seems to be about a type of epigenetic change in bacteria.

What does epigenetic mean? Good question. The Wikipedia entry is quite clear on the matter. It fills the shoe of that term nicely.

In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: over; above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.

Notice how the loose-fitting behave was tightened parenthetically? That is good science writing. And let's end with the good.

I'm even less certain that we should legislate one or a number of a solutions to the problem. Why? To fix something you must understand the nature of the problem. Is it diet, lack of exercise, too much soda, not enough salad?

Maybe it's parenting. And not of the hippo-see, hippo-do variety (sorry!). One recent study shared this finding:

[T]oddlers who did not have a secure emotional relationship with their parents were at increased risk for obesity by age 4 ½. [source]

Thankfully, the report included "how much" increased. While 13% of children in the lowest relationship-stress category were at an increased risk for obesity, the number was 26% for those in the highest relationship-stress category. Hmm. What data and collection method was this finding based upon?

The researchers looked at data from 900+ participants in the "Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, a project of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Oh, they also "analyzed it." Meaning they looked for links between variables. And found one. And from there we get the jump to this statement:

This body of work suggests the areas of the brain that control emotions and stress responses, as well as appetite and energy balance, could be working together to influence the likelihood that a child will be obese.

Well, at least they qualify the assertion with "suggests."

Is stress part of reason why more children are tipping the scales as too heavy? In fact, during a podcast debate of the issue of whether or not the government should get involved in the "obesity epidemic," I heard one health official make this claim. And I doubted it then. Stress is a good catch-all scapegoat. And no one likes the thought of children in stress, so it may be a good way to elicit financial commitment to act . . . Yet it is really a causal variable?

I kinda doubt it. For stress can just as easily result in low weight. Or same weight. In my household of three we have one individual who absolutely can't eat a thing when stressed, one who eats a little less, and the third whose eating habits are unaffected. Of course, mine is a pitifully small sample size. Yet I haven't seen data that suggests a general tendency for stressed adults or children to eat more.

Sure, it could. But does it? Personally, I'd like to see cross-cultural studies on mother-child bonds and BMI measures. That might help.

Until we know more, I would hesitate to throw money at the problem. Sure, that may make us feel better, like we're doing something. But if the intervention misses the mark, we aren't helping anyone. On the contrary.

At this time I suspect that the increasing levels of obesity in our country may be the result of a sort of "perfect storm." Meaning that a number of variables acting in concert could be causing the increase in weight. But who knows. Maybe it's all viral. Meaning truly viral. Or something else.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

Evolution has been, and still sometimes mistakenly is, portrayed as a grand parade to the new, the better, the more complex. But two things, at least, make this flatly untrue.

First, the failures are an undeniable yet indispensable part of the parade. Sure, they tend to be fleeting and thus partly invisible -- joining the parade for a mere half block before veering off to nowhere -- but to overlook them is sheer folly. The numbers, were we to count them, are staggering.

Second, there is no force pushing evolution inextricably toward the bigger and the better. None that seems more than a human projection, in my opinion. Consider this recent science news headline:

Male Sex Chromosome Losing Genes By Rapid Evolution, Study Reveals.

That's right, the male "Y" has been losing size (and hence complexity) over time. It's shrinking. And not due to immersion in cold water.

With evolution, whatever works in one form or another, persists. Whatever doesn't, disappears. Sometimes. If we are talking organisms, that is absolutely true. But non-working (non-functional) characteristics of organisms can persist if there is no cost the selective pressures can subtract. Sometimes.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so don't take my word for it. I also wouldn't advise taking any single thinkers word for anything. I suggest aiming for a deeper education.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

Video games = bad. Right? Wrong. Why? Because it is a hasty answer to a bogus questions: Are video games good or bad?

Critical thinkers will examine and critique a question before answering it. Video games--which video games? Good or bad--in what ways? And, importantly--good OR bad? Is this black/white thinking helpful?

While the vast majority of research into video games has focused on the violent type and how they might influence human beings to be more aggressive/violent, there have been a few studies on other types of video games having a more beneficial affect on behavior. But there are a few. A new one has just been published in the June 2009 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. And the science behind it seems relatively solid.

The article presents the findings of three separate studies, conducted in different countries with different age groups, and using different scientific approaches. All the studies find that playing games with prosocial content causes players to be more helpful to others after the game is over.

Co-author Brad Bushman said,

These studies show the same kind of impact on three different age groups from three very different cultures.

Good. I like that. But then I think Brad got a bit carried away with this statement,

The resulting triangulation of evidence provides the strongest possible proof that the findings are both valid and generalizable.

Boy do I hate the word "proof." Fine, use it in mathematics. But for forensics and psychology and virtually all of science, I find the term inappropriate. Proof has too much certitude and finality infused into it. Evidence is better.

That said, we can now see how the question, "Are video games good or bad?" is a bogus question, particularly if we expect a brief answer.

-

[source] University of Michigan (2009, June 18). Some Video Games Can Make Children Kinder And More Likely To Help. ScienceDaily.

Mind you, sometimes you've got to start with the fruity stuff. Maybe often. You then progressively distill out the impurities and up the strength. Scientifically speaking.

A recent study on home births and midwifes struck me as quite fruity. Allow me to highlight the chunks of pineapple and candied cherries.

First, the title: Midwives Use Rituals to Send Message That Women's Bodies Know Best.

"Rituals" . . . fine. But it depends what they are. Might be a legit variable. Yet a ritual isn't good by default, simply because we like the word.

Then, "women's bodies know best"? That strikes me as pandering and at least partially mistaken. It implies always. There is plenty of research showing people don't really know their bodies well, nor are they skilled at interpreting what their body is 'saying.' Sometimes, sure. Maybe what the midwives are doing is giving the women greater confidence to . . . trust and accept the incredibly dynamic changes their bodies go through during childbirth. To relax (relatively).

Next we have a paragraph that has a cloying taste, to me -- one that manifests bias.

The midwife experience uses these rituals to send the message that home birth is about female empowerment, strengthening relationships between family and friends, and facilitating participatory experiences that put mothers in control, with the ultimate goal of safe and healthy deliveries less focused on technological intervention.

Um, technology isn't bad, nor is empowerment always good. These are mere words and we really have to get into the nitty-gritty to evaluate any goodness or badness.

Data source alert: in-depth interviews with midwifes and their clients. That's bottom-shelf, low-proof brew. Even when you add the 'in-depth' umbrella.

What strikes me as most cautionary and likely telling about the quality of the science conducted -- and the questionable intellectual diligence of the scientist -- is the use of jargon. The use of terms that are less scientific, more political. They are aimed at persuading by way of their first-sniff attractiveness or repulsion. Empowerment, rituals, participatory, mind-body connection, family, home . . . how can you not root for those? Technology, hospital, medicalized, equipment . . . who could have warm and fuzzy thoughts about something medicalized?

Consider this bit from the news release:

Cheyney also documented the use of common phrases to create birthing mantras. She lists phrases such as "don't fight it," "let your body do it," "open," and "let it be strong," as key components to the home birth ritual.

"Don't fight it" is a . . . mantra? Oy. Another colorful word with questionable substance behind it.

Oregon State University researcher Melissa Cheyney seemed to argue that home births were better than hospital births. And some times for some people, they no doubt are. For other people at other times, probably not.

Finally there is this, at the core of the issue -

Cheyney said evidence shows that hospital births result in about triple the rate of cesarean section for low-risk women compared to midwife-attended home births. Because of her unique role as both a researcher and midwife, Cheyney was able to gain access to hundreds of home births in various parts of the United States, and also witnessed more than 60 hospital births.

This is definitely an important issue. But is the solution to the unnecessarily high rate of cesarean births to instead opt for home births? Does a drawback to hospital births automatically make home births better? Though the two issues overlap, it seems to me that there are a number of things going on. For instance, maybe the more important factor is the profit motive (to avoid insurance claims, maybe, to pad the hospital bill, sadly maybe?) Hospitals don't like taking risks, so they tend to avoid them. And they do prefer to make money. Midwives lack the same incentive when it comes to risks, but might share the one about protecting their wallets. Is there an element to a turf war to this? I wonder.

Personally, I think home births are great if they can be done safely and you are into that sort of thing. Other times, hospital births are the smarter choice. But the only way to determine when one type of delivery might be better than the other is to do better science.